[License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

[Nigel T]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 3, 2018, at 3:49 AM, Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb at elstel.org> wrote:


> I would have to invent an upstream license. I wonder why UCL is open source as it seems to force users to publish also under an upstream license without defining it.

The “upstream” license is defined to be Apache 2.0 or later.

> C-FSL does roughly turn out to perform the same in one license while it cleanly defines the rights of the original authors without anyone having to read an upstream license.
>  If both licenses achieve the same I would still highly prefer C-FSL as it is more readable to developers like me. I believe many licenses fail in the way that those who have to work under a given license will be ready to understand it.

Apache is widely understood.  

The purpose of the UCL text is to have a copyleft that requires a permissive dual source license on derivative works.  It’s not a very long license and Larry as a very nice post on the objectives of the license.

> P.S.: 'all Derivative Work You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under both this Upstream Compatibility License and the Apache License 2.0 or later;'
> - To me the 'shall' is somewhat misleading as it reads like a recommendation and not something you need to adhere to when publishing a derived work of a work under the given license.

I believe that “shall” in legal terms means “has a duty to”.  Perhaps it should be “must”.  

Hmmm...