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

[Engel Nyst]

On 09/17/2014 03:25 PM, Jim Wright wrote:
> I'm not sure how you are reading that - it includes the documentation
> and the data in the definition of the licensed Software, and does not
> grant rights to non-submitted copyrighted works at all.

I think you're right. I must have misread, this is correct.

> Your objection here and throughout the objections below seems
> premised on the idea that the ability to sublicense under other
> terms renders something not actually open source. I do not agree,
> and having discussed this with lots of other lawyers, including many
> on the list here (none of whom, I note, raised this objection, either
> on the list or in our discussions), don't think there's much else to
> say on the matter.  The ability to sublicense a given work on other
> terms does not render either the license or the code distributed
> under it not open source or violate any requirement of the OSD.

I note you don't answer my questions on this subject. You just keep
delegating it to lawyers and courts, while you avoid to give any answer
to delegate, not even how will UPL work in reality in the simplest
cases. An 'argument' by appeal to authority[1] is a logical fallacy,
without even mentioning (in)appropriateness.

@All
I strongly suggest OSI to consider not approving this license until, at
least, we get public answers, and if possible, an independent legal review.


 From my armchair, I submit to the attention of the list a case related
to the (probably obvious) remark that Jim's misunderstanding of BSD and
GPLv2, and attempts to craft a license to 'solve' a problem that doesn't
exist, are not really new. They have been made many times on these
lists, but rather years ago, and not that much for a long time. For
example, someone was trying in 2007 to 'solve' a problem with
'sublicensing' and GPL:
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:14690:200711:mgjjfbndjmpjbjhbdnbp

"If this software is part of a GPL licensed software then this license
expands to the MIT license, else this license expands to the 3-BSD license."

Apart from the funny wording of the 'MIT or BSD' license, concerns were
raised because recipients will not know what license they got on
verbatim copies. It depended where these copies were used, and on
variations of MIT and BSD.

UPL is well drafted, but it depends where the copies are used, as well.
And this time, its disjunction isn't even between open licenses. 'MIT or
BSD' at least was compliant, but this license is 'MIT-like or arbitrary
other terms', which contradicts the permissions grant. I might
be missing something, because I don't get why would this be now acceptable.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

-- 
  "Excuse me, Professor Lessig, may I ask you to sign this CLA, so we can
*legally* have your permission to remix and distribute your CC-licensed
works?"
  ~ Permission culture, take two.