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

[Engel Nyst]

On 09/04/2014 10:06 AM, Jim Wright wrote:
> After reading and rereading, I think I understand what you're saying
>  but this is not now this wording is commonly interpreted, which is
> why no one else has questioned it - the phrase "provided that" does
> not necessarily require that the following text is a gating boolean
> condition on the former, it can also be used to introduce a
> clarification, as is the case here.

FWIW, my reading is the same with Henrik Ingo's: 'provided that' seems
to introduce a condition, a limit in scope of the permission for
derivative works.

This is the same meaning of 'provided that' as used in BSD[1], or
Artistic 2.0[2].

It is also, eventually, the reading of the court in Jacobsen v.
Katzer[3], where the opinion text analyzes whether the phrase 'provided
that' is to be interpreted as start of conditions in Artistic 1.0
license, limiting the scope of the grant, and concludes that it is.

I am not a lawyer and happy to be corrected if this understanding is
incorrect, but my point isn't as much legal (nor any analysis of the
whole text), rather I'm surprised to read this wouldn't be common
interpretation. It seems fairly common in open source licensing, even if
we only count how widely used BSD is.


[1] http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-3-clause
[2] http://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-2.0
[3] http://scholar.google.ro/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893

-- 
~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom
works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)