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

[Jim Wright]

Well, I think the conversation strayed a bit from the UPL (and thanks Pam for renaming the thread, I'm renaming this one back since we've steered back in this direction :).  But getting back to it, the reason *I* want to expressly permit this is to be crystal clear that the license facilitates use in both (i) strong copyleft code (potentially requiring licensing originally UPLed code under the copyleft terms), and (ii) commercial code for which a commercial licensor may want to offer other terms.  

And at the same time, since users are always going to get my notice in any event, they can always come back to me for the original code under the original terms, so the additional freedom I grant them costs me nothing IMHO. 

 Regards,
  Jim


On Sep 12, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Jim Wright wrote:
> > And if you're a fan of strong copyleft, 
> > this might not be a preferred outcome.
>  
> I am and remain a fan of copyleft. But I'm not a fan of overreach. If "strong copyleft" implies that someone else can change the license I impose on my works, then I'm not a fan of that.
>  
> Nearly 20 years ago I had a conversation with RMS about this. We both understood that commercial companies frequently impose onerous conditions on the environments in which their software can be used. As Eben reminds us, even Nimmer approves the legality of such practices. It is possible to write copyright licenses that allow use of works only by those agile folks who can stand on their heads and whistle Dixie while running Java code under Linux. But that ain't FOSS! And even RMS understood that if he wrote a version of GPL that reached that far, he'd have no licensees.
>  
> Further to the point of this thread: Sublicensing exists. It is explicit in some FOSS licenses, disallowed in others. Neither of us will affect that reality. But you're the one proposing a new license, so I think the real question for you is: Why do you want me to allow you (a distributor) to sublicense my work given that I've already directly granted you (and everyone downstream) all 17 U.S.C. 106 rights? Remember, as Pam Chestek noted, I'd be giving up privity for this, so you should make a better case than "I want it."
>  
> /Larry
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag (www.rosenlaw.com)
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> Cell: 707-478-8932
> LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review



408-981-9202
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140912/9c418249/attachment.html>