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

[Nigel T]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161026/0fc7877d/attachment.html>