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

[Josh Berkus]

On 09/11/2014 03:07 PM, Jim Wright wrote:
> Yeah, I was trying to keep it shorter than that, but in any event while this strikes me as not likely to be a real world problem, I agree it's worth addressing, and will do so along with renaming the larger works file to 8.3 in one more revision since I've gotten more than one person saying it should accommodate this.  Already figured out how to fix the issue easily enough, see revision to follow shortly.

I have a potentially better fix for the naming issue:  make it a
fill-in-the-blank, just like the company names.  That is, there's no
good reason for the filename to be fixed as part of the canonical license.

Anyway, as a developer I'm satisfied by Jim's changes, if the lawyers
are satisfied by the wording.  I do strongly feel that this license
requires a FAQ somewhere, though, or everyone who uses it will answer
the questions I asked multiple times.

One other suggestion: Call it UPL 1.0.  I strongly suspect that there
will be a 2.0 someday, so versioning it would make life easier for a lot
of people.

--Josh Berkus