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

[Carlo Piana]

On 25/10/2016 10:02, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 25/10/16 04:22, Nigel T wrote:
>> It's submitted as a special purpose license primarily because the
>> designed for use case is open sourcing an existing closed source
>> product.  The dual licensing with Apache for upstream gives that
>> developer the commercial safety of a strong copyleft release (commercial
>> competitors can't simply take their features and fold it into their own
>> product) without the hassle of herding a CLA process to keep
>> compatibility between the open and closed versions.
> And it's precisely this use (many would say "abuse") of copyleft to give
> special privileges to one particular party which is opposed by many in
> the free software world. The fact that it's a hassle to do does not mean
> the OSI needs to make it easier.
>
> Mozilla has a policy of not signing CLAs with commercial entities where
> the software concerned is under a copyleft license, because we don't
> believe it's right to give away special privileges to one entity like
> this. If this license were approved, we would have to change our general
> "OK to use" licensing policy from "anything OSI-approved" to "anything
> OSI-approved apart from the Upstream Compatibility License".
>
> Gerv


I have no final opinion, but the fact that the license creates two or
more "clubs" where people have more rights disturbs me quite. As I
understand it, when you add your own code, you create a subclub where
you have all the rights provided from the upstream, plus all the rights
you receive from the downstream additions or patches on your own
addition or patch. And so on with small enclosures of people with
limited privileges. Why should the downstream receive a different
treatment compared to the original? It's the same concept as patents:
the first inventors have a lien on follow-up inventors, even if the
follow-up has perhaps more relevance and importance, sometimes it's the
technology without which the first invention is largely irrelevant.

I would be more inclined to accept this concept if the downstream
contributor, once her contribution is committed, receives the same
status as the original ones, but I also reckon this ways it's going to
be an organizational mess and it would create too much uncertainty. The
license should be the only reference to the rights obtained, not a
subsequent action or inaction or statement or non statement.

It is true however that the downstream contributors do receive a fully
compliant set of rights, and this perhaps means the license is strictly
compliant. Then again, the copyright conditions are asymmetric, thus I
cannot get rid of that blinking red light on my dashboard.

Cheers

Carlo