<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div>The license is short so review by the FSF should be quick. If someone is requesting a “niche use” license is it unreasonable to say “prove to me that it actually fills that niche”? However unlikely what if the FSF says “No” or just doesn’t answer for
a while?</div>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
I am also curious why UPL isn’t good enough. Because UPL is a re-worded MIT license with patent grant:</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><b>What is the UPL and why did you create it?</b></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">The UPL is a highly permissive license, including both copyright and patent licenses, which permits use and relicensing under both copyleft and commercial terms, and also facilitates use as a contributor
license agreement.</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">It was originally borne out of a discussion in the Java Community Process around what it would take to permit collaboration on JSR reference implementations in open source forges without the necessity
of collaborators signing the JSPA or an Oracle Contributor Agreement. In order to accommodate the broadest possible use case, the license needed to include an express patent license and to be broadly agreed to be GPLv2, GPLv2+Classpath Exception, CDDL, and
commercial license compatible, including the ability to cut and paste code between modules, and while it is almost universally agreed among those knowledgeable in FOSS licensing that license proliferation is something to be avoided without good cause, since
a license meeting these relatively simple and obvious criteria did not exist, it was decided to draft one.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Drafting started with the MIT license, and after a lot of discussion with other open source lawyers, developers, members of the Java Community Process Executive Committee, and reviewers and board
members of the Open Source Initiative, and several rounds of revision, finally arrived at the vetted license text you see here. The license was approved by the OSI as conforming with the Open Source Definition and non-duplicative of existing permissive licenses
in February 2015.”</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div>
<h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><font size="3">Can you point to some concrete problems the UPL solves that you could not have addressed with the MIT, BSD or Apache licenses?</font></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The most important problem the UPL solves is the inclusion of an express patent license in a license that is both broadly agreed to be uniformly copyleft compatible and also permits the software to be freely used in commercially licensed software (i.e., without
concerns about reciprocal license obligations). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The MIT and BSD licenses do not include express patent licenses, and while many argue that there is an implied patent license, there is nontrivial debate about the existence & scope of any such implied license. This is addressed in some more detail below. The
Apache license, on the other hand, is argued by some not to be GPLv2 compatible, which makes it tricky to use in connection with GPLv2 licensed code – the GPLv2 is still by far the most popular open source license, and unambiguous, undisputed GPL compatibility
was a crucial qualifier for any license considered for use in the JCP. (Even the BSD license has been argued not to be GPL compatible – while this need not be addressed here, and it is not the conclusion of the FSF or most others, by virtue of expressly permitting
relicensing on other terms, the UPL is definitively and fully GPLv2 compatible.)</p>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<a href="https://oss.oracle.com/licenses/upl/#_What_is_the_1">https://oss.oracle.com/licenses/upl/#_What_is_the_1</a></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
So exactly why do we need a BSD variant with patent grant when we already have a MIT variant with a patent grant that the FSF has already publicly agreed as GPL V2 compliant on their website?</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
All of a sudden license proliferation is a non-issue? That’s fine by me as I’ve never been that much of a fan of that concern.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Are any of the other concerns voiced two years ago about UPL any better addressed by BSD+Patent Grant? I guess without the Larger Works clause there is one less file to look for.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
However, I would ask that if the BSD+PL:</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">“(b) </font><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">by combination of their copyrighted material with the work of
authorship to which such copyrighted material was added by such copyright holder or contributor, if, at the time the copyrighted material was added, such addition causes such combination to be covered by the patent claim. The patent license shall not apply
to any other combinations which include their copyrighted material. </span><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">“</span></font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 254, 254);">better</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 254, 254);">
fulfills the same role as the UPL:</span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 254, 254);"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(254, 253, 253);"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">“(b)
</span></span><span class="GramE">any</span> piece of software and/or hardware listed in the lrgrwrks.txt file if one is included with the Software (each a “Larger Work” to which the Software is contributed by such licensors),”</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Because at least the lrgrwkrs.txt file is explicit. </div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<b>Q. Does using the “at the time the copyrighted material was added” phrase means that if I want to do my due diligence I need to look at commit times and when patents were granted to make sure someone hasn’t submarined a patent in there?</b></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div><b><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Q: What happens if someone commits changes to a BSD+PL licensed reference implementation that at the time of commit there isn’t a patent BUT later on they apply for and a patent is granted to them? Do I have a patent
license or not? </font></b></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Regards,</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Nigel</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px;">
On 1/19/16, 11:57 PM, "License-review on behalf of Josh Berkus" <<a href="mailto:license-review-bounces@opensource.org">license-review-bounces@opensource.org</a> on behalf of
<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org">josh@postgresql.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px;">
<br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 12px; border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;">
<div>On 01/19/2016 06:12 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>Wow, this thread has degraded to the point of silliness. </div>
<div></div>
<div>Every OSI Board member who has commented on this license has said</div>
<div>positive things about it. It's a good license. It fills a niche that we</div>
<div>have long wanted filled. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, and I have an *immediate* use for such a license.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I haven't seen an attorney weigh in on the patent grant issues inherent</div>
<div>in a liberal patent-grant license. Has one posted a review elsewhere?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- </div>
<div>Josh Berkus</div>
<div>PostgreSQL Project</div>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>License-review mailing list</div>
<div><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a></div>
<div><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>