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

[Jim Wright]

Well, shoot, I thought we were done but I suppose we could possibly address this issue easily and without too many additional words (Simon, consider the nod on hold for a sec) - Allison, John & Henrik, let me know if you all agree this revision is consistent in meaning but clearer.  

 Best,
  Jim


Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

The Universal Permissive License (UPL), Version 1.0

Subject to the condition set forth below, permission is hereby granted to any person obtaining a copy of this software, associated documentation and/or data (collectively the "Software"), free of charge and under any and all copyright rights in the Software, and any and all patent rights owned or freely licensable by each licensor hereunder covering either (i) the unmodified Software as contributed to or provided by such licensor, or (ii) the Larger Works (as defined below), to deal in both

(a) the Software, and

(b) any piece of software and/or hardware listed in the lrgrwrks.txt file if one is included with the Software (each a “Larger Work” to which the Software is contributed by such licensors),

without restriction, including without limitation the rights to copy, create derivative works of, display, perform, and distribute the Software and make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, export, have made, and have sold the Software and the Larger Work(s), and to sublicense the foregoing rights on either these or other terms.

This license is subject to the following condition:

The above copyright notice and either this complete permission notice or at a minimum a reference to the UPL must be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. 




> On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:46 AM, cowan at ccil.org wrote:
> 
> Jim Wright:
> 
>> John, the copyright terms there *do* serve a purpose, they serve to scope
>> the copyright license to the Software and simply don't apply to the Larger
>> Works since those are not the subject of the copyright grant.  On the
>> other hand, if we removed those copyright terms completely, there would be
>> no express declaration of the right, e.g., to create derivative works of
>> the Software, so the enumerated copyright rights need to stay in for the
>> license to serve its purpose.
> 
> Yes, I see that.  But I think it would still be less confusing to have
> two clauses: one listing the patent magic words and saying "Software and
> Larger Works", and the other listing the copyright magic words and
> saying "Software" but not "Larger Works".
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part that cooks with lard and goose
> fat, the part that cooks with olive oil, and the part that cooks with butter.
>  --David Chessler
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150218/d0e028fa/attachment.html>