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

[Josh berkus]

On 10/26/2016 02:54 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 25/10/16 18:29, Josh berkus wrote:
>> 2. any additions to this core code must be licensed Apache 2.0, and
>> documented.
> 
> I'm not sure you can force this, because the Apache license itself says
> that it's OK to put Apache code into proprietary products. That's the
> point of a permissive license. If you say derivatives of this Apache
> code have to be Apache-licensed, you've turned it into a copyleft license.

Yeah, I'd like to hear from the lawyers on this.  But I was specifically
suggesting that derivative works of the *UPL* code would be Apache.

>> While hardly ideal, from a *developer* perspective this is a big
>> improvement over CLA+Dual, which is the common pattern.  I don't have to
>> fill out a CLA (something which blocks contributors from many countries
>> and employers).  
> 
> Yeah, but it's not the fact that it's called a CLA that's the problem,
> it's the effect that it has. Those promoting this license are just
> wanting that effect by other means.

I feel like you didn't read any of the reasons I gave.  Under this
scheme you needn't have any direct contact with the company at all, and
you retain full rights to your copyright.

I'm interested in this license specifically because I think, from the
developer perspective, that it *is* better than dual-licensing+CLA.  And
if we accept it, I'll be talking to some startups about replacing their
current CLA setup with it.

> This is not simple. I suggest you take some time to rethink and consult
> lawyers.

Apparently Larry Rosen helped him draft this license, so he has
consulted attorneys.

--Josh Berkus