[License-review] Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval
fontana at opensource.org
Mon Nov 28 23:43:17 UTC 2016
My general sense of the license-review discussion of the UCL, and this
is confirmed for me by re-reading it now, is that opinion was mostly
negative, with concerns being expressed about the asymmetrical nature
of the license. This matches my personal view of the license. Thus I
would recommend against approval.
Regarding NOSA 2.0, I'm afraid there has been no change in status. In
the short term I would not expect NOSA 2.0 to be approved without
substantial revisions, or else convincing justifications of
arguably-problematic provisions. However there has been no 'up or down
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:34:54AM -0500, Nigel T wrote:
> 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
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review