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

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:58 AM, license-review-request at opensource.org wrote:

> After some thought, I believe that whether future versions of the Software or Larger Works are to be licensed is better left to the larger works designation, since this will permit either a license grant covering only the work as of the date of the contribution (therefore rendering the license closer to the way most of us interpret the MIT license in the absence of a larger works file, only with well defined patent grants), or a broader grant, depending on the desired application.

Since this is intended to be "universally permissive", I'd expect the default be language to be one that permits universal use, noninfringing derivative or original sources, not one defined very narrowly based on contents of a larger works file.

Maybe call it the "Generally Permissive License".. ;)

>> I have listened to the questions and comments of the various parties in our recent meetings, and here is a proposal for use of a revised UPL and some background on my thinking as per our discussion.  The revised UPL reads as follows:

I don't think it's been said, or I missed it, but I certainly appreciate that you've taken time to digest and revise instead of just defend.  This license is getting so much discussion because it is interesting.

>> (b) any piece of software and/or hardware listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file if one is included with the Software

The complaints about assuming a filesystem, case, and file extensions still remain.  Perhaps you could templatize this aspect similarly, e.g., "software and/or hardware listed in <other works file> if one is included".  Or perhaps blatantly call it a <patent rights file> to convey the intent.

>>  (each a "Larger Work" to which the Software is contributed by such licensors),

What?  Each software and/or hardware listed contains the Software?  Each LARGER_WORKS.TXT file?  The wording and intent seem ambiguous to me.

>> create derivative works of (provided that this does not license additional patent claims beyond those covering the unmodified Software

Creating a derivative work does not license additional patent claims.  Should that have been "does not infringe additional patent claims"?

>> Larger Works

I'm a legal noephyte and perhaps this is common knowledge, but the definition of a Larger Work seems undefined here.  Conventionally, I'd expect that to simply be some other work not necessarily covered by the terms of this license, yet in this context we are covering terms for that work here.

>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.

How is this true?  If I take the Software exactly as-is from the licensor, how do I not have an expressed warranty of noninfringement?

>> - One, it removes the reference to future versions of the Software and Larger Works from the base license text and pushes this, for the purpose of the JCP, to the larger works file, and limits the scope of those future versions in that larger works file to the final RI and Maintenance Releases.  I deemed this ok for use in various other contexts as well, as you can recover all or some future versions of whatever you are seeking the license for by referring to it in the larger works file where appropriate.

This is back to my very first point.  I would expect the default of a "universally permissive" license to extend to future versions by default and let some larger/other works file narrow that scope if so desired.

>> signatories would still retain their defensive termination rights

Does this mean a given patent grant can be revoked?  That would be blatantly anti-open source, philosophically speaking, in my view.  What a great way to sabotage a product or community on a whim.  Again, legal neophyte.

Cheers!
Sean