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

[Lawrence Rosen]

John, I'll give you time to reconsider your riddle answers before it is too
late. :-)

> 1) Change your hypo and assume that Bob issues code under the GPL, 
> definitely not a "permissive license" by your meaning.
>  
> 2) through 5) identical. Same result?

No.  In that case, Alice (or any commercial intermediary) pretty much has to
put Bob's source code on the ship to Debian Island, whether or not you think
Alice is required thereby to put her own source code on it.
Otherwise, Alice is subject to paying Bob that nasty $150,000.

[<LER>] Sure. So the difference in damages is whether or not the source code
for Bob's work is actually included on floppy disks in the post to Debian
Island? Remember, "that nasty $150,000" depends on convincing a judge that
Alice did something very wrong. Statutory damages could be MUCH lower than
that.  In point of fact, though, that is a danger, so I recommend that all
FOSS software distributors post links to the source code and licenses for
EVERY FOSS component regardless of its license in order to avoid any
possibility of that sin. And if they ship CD's to Debian Island, I encourage
sending along the source code. Not that anyone actually wants it that way,
and Debian Island now supports Internet access.

> Assume also the following details as sub-riddles:
>
> 6) Alice's original proprietary program was written and Alice's 
> copyright registered on it the year Linus Torvalds was born. Alice is 
> replacing parts of that old proprietary anchor-ware with Bob's 
> zipped-in program.  Fortunately for Alice, she didn't need to change 
> one bit of her old software or Bob's new software to make this 
> improvement; it is as close to a plug-in as technology allows. Same 
> result or must Alice disclose more of her source code or apply the GPL 
> to her old proprietary code?

Larry says no, Richard says yes.  John says Larry is probably right in
principle, but since the custom of the trade says yes, yes is pragmatically
the right answer.

[<LER>] Let Richard answer for himself. :-) And, to grotesquely exaggerate
the situation, "custom of the trade" was never an excuse for slavery nor
copyright infringement. You should read more cases decided on the basis of
custom of the trade before you rely on it in a software copyright law
setting. So should I. I did actually read the "Principles of the Law of
Software Contracts" published by The American Law Institute, but even they
couldn't say what the custom of the trade was in FOSS licenses.


> 8) Assume for another riddle how the situation would change if Alice
> *didn't* provide Charlie with a copy of Bob's GPL license and source 
> code along with her proprietary software. And then, Charlie copied and 
> distributed his proprietary version also without notices and copies of 
> Bob's GPL license and source code. Obviously Bob has his own copyright 
> infringement claims against both Alice and Charlie, but does Bob's GPL 
> license protect any downstream third party beneficiaries of his code?

Clause 6 of the GPLv2 seems to say so:

    Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
    Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
    the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program
    subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any
    further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
    granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance
    by third parties to this License.

[<LER>] I'm not so sure. Under this hypothetical, there are no actual
downstream third parties who even knew that the license existed. Are you
suggesting that there can be oblivious third party beneficiaries (under
contract law!) of a software license who get their rights from infringers
(under copyright law!)? There is the contract law notion of "good faith
purchaser for value," but I'm not sure that applies under copyright law or
in a situation where the GPL was infringed. Actually, in such situations
most commercial agreements with Alice will include warranties and
indemnification, so damages by what you're calling third party beneficiaries
may be a private matter between her and her direct customers. Bob owes them
nothing at all.

Thanks for playing.

/Larry