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

[Engel Nyst]

For the record, I think any permissive license with a patent grant is
and will be a great idea. That wasn't the issue I was pointing at.

On 09/20/2014 11:52 AM, Jim Wright wrote:
> 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.

Allow me to read this license, in full, in my understanding:

> "Permission has been granted, once upon the time, to the first
> licensee, under any and all copyright rights [...], to deal in the
> Software [...] without restriction, including without limitation the
> rights to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, export, have
> made, have sold, copy, create derivative works [...]

> That license has been subject to the following condition: the above
> copyright notice and either this complete permission notice [...]
> shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the
> Software.

> Oracle has terminated that license.

> Hereby, you have UPL or AL2.0 or BSD or GPLv2 ...[...] or
> all-rights-reserved or use-for-a-demo-week-and-delete or [...] other
> terms."

The effect for subsequent licensees looks rather similar with the old
MIT-or-BSD-or-variants license to me, except that it includes an
undefined number of arbitrary other terms.


-- 
~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom
works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)