[License-review] Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval

Nigel T nigel.2048 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 15:34:54 UTC 2016

I have not updated UCL given that there has been no updates from the OSI
itself.  I'd like to also request the status of the NOSA v2.0 license

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am happy to revise and to get legal feedback but since I'm doing this as
> an individual I have to ask nicely for folks to help me or pay out of
> pocket.
> If we can get tentative consensus that requiring dual licensing for
> derivative works is not an automatic disqualifier under the OSD because of
> asymmetry, regardless of mechanism or wording then I will engage with legal
> review.  Otherwise there isn't much point.
> I'm glad that Josh sees that other projects besides mine may benefit.  The
> objective is to streamline one (of many) common form of open source
> development that some (besides me) consider cumbersome today.
> I view licenses from a developer centric perspective and some of what we
> do in terms of licensing are work arounds balancing contributing to the
> community and sustainability.  Smaller open source projects, companies,
> startups, etc operate in a different manner than say RedHat or Mozilla.
> There are many valid ways to do and promote open source.
> Regards,
> Nigel
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> wrote:
>> On 26/10/16 12:51, Nigel T wrote:
>> > That is a good point.  So I would change this to any additions to this
>> > code must be licensed under both UCL 1.0 or later and Apache 2.0 or
>> > later.
>> If both licenses are required, then your license is not the UCL 1.0 or
>> Apache 2.0, it's a combination of both which is itself a new set of
>> licensing terms.
>> This is not simple. I suggest you take some time to rethink and consult
>> lawyers.
>> Gerv
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161114/df38fa34/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list