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

[Jim Wright]

Engel, the license was not created to solve any perceived problem with copyleft compatibility, the discussion about the desirability of sublicensing is a side track.  Not only do other FOSS licenses provide for it as well, I think if you think about it, you'll see that the practical effect on users is largely the same as under other permissive licenses only with more clarity on patent rights - a distributor may either provide source or choose not to, but the user always gets a notice so that they know what's in there and can go get the code themselves under the terms of the UPL.  While I appreciate a good debate as much as the next guy, whether a particular commercial license model or copyleft license model does or should benefit from sublicensing (so that, e.g., a distributor has the ability to remove any additional permissions on a part of the code from a conveyed copy) is simply not necessary to decide here.  And it has nothing to do with the primary problem the license solves, which is to provide an express patent license unlike BSD or MIT, and also the opportunity to extend that patent license to a larger work to which one is contributing, as has been discussed at great length earlier in the discussions.  Cheers.

 Regards,
  Jim


On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.