[License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive License (UPL)

[Jim Wright]

Since not everyone seems to agree on these issues, and in any event, in this case I *do* want to permit relicensing, unambiguously, it does not affect my reasoning either.  :)   This perspective was definitely worth mentioning, thank you.  

 Regards,
  Jim

> On Sep 9, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> A correction.... I wrote:
> > I'm aware of no FOSS license which allows that code to be relicensed.
>  
> I forgot about MPL, which allows relicensing under specific GPL "Secondary" licenses. I even forgot my own NOSL which allows (even requires!) relicensing under the OSL when a non-profit becomes a for-profit. :-)
>  
> And of course there are the "GPLv2 or later" notices which have the effect of allowing relicensing.
>  
> But that has nothing to do with sublicensing either, so it my forgetfulness does not affect my argument.
>  
> /Larry
>  
>  
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 12:57 PM
> To: 'License submissions for OSI review'
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: RE: [License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive License (UPL)
>  
> This is in the paper referred to by Jim Wright:
>  
> An assumption made by this paper is that licensees are granted their license by distributors, and not by the original licensor.
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179
>  
> I don't agree with that assumption. As least for me and for everyone else covered by U.S. copyright law, we intend that anything we write and publish under a FOSS or Creative Commons license remains under that license while we are alive – and beyond – regardless of what downstream distributors do with their own products or services.
>  
> If a distributor incorporates certain FOSS code it finds with a NOTICE that a specific license applies (as decided or authorized by the copyright owner) (e.g., the BSD or GPLv2 or CC-BY licenses), then that is the license that applies for all valid copies of that code received by anyone under the terms of that license. Is that axiom being questioned?
>  
> Sometimes that specific license also applies to derivative works of that code (e.g., GPL, MPL), or can compel notice obligations on both copies and derivative works (e.g., CC-BY).
>  
> I'm aware of no FOSS license which allows that code to be relicensed. Private commercial arrangements are possible, of course, directly with the copyright owner. [The term "sublicensing" has another meaning entirely!]
>  
> The specific terms and conditions of the original FOSS license accompany that code in perpetuity (or for 100 years, whichever comes first). Every FOSS license, regardless of sublicensing, allows that code to be incorporated into derivative and collective works. That plus source code! What more does anyone need of the 17 U.S.C. § 106 copyright rights?
>  
> The original FOSS license, including its notice requirements, applies to a copy that is in a collective or derivative work, although it may not apply to the collective or derivative work itself. Those are separate works under 17 U.S.C. for which a different license may be allowed. But for notice requirements, for example, CC0 components included proprietary derivative works don't need to be noticed but CC-BY components do.
>  
> Once we agree on those basic principles, then it is fair to ask whether "sublicensing" actually provides anything different or whether it is an ancient commercial licensing word that was thrown into the MIT and other licenses among the 17 USC 106 "copyright rights" actually being licensed for no important purpose.
>  
> /Larry
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wright at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 3:02 PM
> To: Josh Berkus
> Cc: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive License (UPL)
>  
> Others may weigh in, but IMHO, people commonly interpret at least some other permissive licenses similarly, especially the MIT license since it includes an express right to sublicense.  I have, however, seen some disagreement on the topic in various contexts (see, e.g., http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179), and I am aiming for improved clarity here, thus spelling it out explicitly in the UPL.
>  
> Best,
> Jim
>  
> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/04/2014 05:49 AM, Jim Wright wrote:
> >> Specific pass-through license requirements or scope limitations like not being able to remove conditions of the inbound license don't necessarily mean you are required to license outbound under identical terms.  You can offer another license for the code, and are not required to offer a license under the UPL yourself, it's just that the terms you choose may not, e.g., remove the notice condition imposed by the original authors.  So it's "or".
> >
> > OK, that doesn't make intuitive sense to this layman.  Can a lawyer on
> > this list comment?
> >
> > Jim, the reason I'm after this point is that your text is different
> > from the MIT, BSD and PostgreSQL licenses in this respect.  I'm trying
> > to find out if the difference is significant -- or could be *made* to
> > be significant by 3rd parties.
> >
> > --Josh Berkus
> >
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140909/3ae63464/attachment.html>