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

[Nigel T]

Josh,

Well, it's copyleft so you have to publish the changes made by your
derivative work to anyone you release it to.

In the 4th generation derivative work, anything after your first
contribution you have Apache.  Anything before your first contribution you
have UCL.  I guess you can diff with your own repo to see where it first
forked and if they have pulled since.  If the code is from a foreign repo
then more archeology may be required.

As to why not just saying that all additional code added as derivative
works is published under Apache 2.0...um...I don't have a good answer. :)

I'm releasing this code as copyleft but everything added by anyone else is
permissive.  Hmmm...I'll sleep on that but seems like it would work and be
conceptually simpler.  If that removes any OSD 5 concerns then it might be
the way to go.  Thanks.

Regards,

Nigel


On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Josh berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161025/5ca82dd1/attachment.html>