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

[Josh berkus]

On 10/24/2016 08:22 PM, Nigel T wrote:
> 
> This is most useful in fairly modular systems.  For example if you added
> a cool new filter to a UCL licensed photo editor then you would be able
> to reuse, remix or build upon that filter in the future in any
> subsequent project.  The provenance of that code and your Apache 2.0 or
> later license grant can be traced via the repo of the UCL project you
> grabbed the latest version of the filter from even after a fork or two. 
> Plugins fall into this category as well.

Shouldn't the license then carry a requirement to publish the changes
made by derivative works?  If I'm getting a 4th generation derivative
work, I want to have some idea what the various portions are licensed as.

And, given the special status of the Original Work in this case (I'm not
100% sold on that, but for sake of argument) why this complicated dodge
with licencing back?  Why not just say that all additional code added as
derivative works is published under the Apache 2.0?

--Josh Berkus