<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>Richard Fontana wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>> My general sense of the license-review discussion of the UCL, and this is confirmed for me by re-reading it now, is that opinion was mostly negative, with concerns being expressed about the asymmetrical nature of the license. This matches my personal view of the license. Thus I would recommend against approval.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hi Richard, I remember reading that thread closely (but silently) and wondering if a conclusion could be reached on this list without hearing additional meaningful comments about "the asymmetrical nature of the license." What does that phrase mean and why is it problematic?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Under ordinary copyright law, the owner of a copyright always has more rights than everyone else (especially in moral rights countries), and in any country where the owner can enforce the copyright and nobody else can. What's wrong with those asymmetries if the software is itself open source to those who receive it? Other asymmetries matter?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana<br>Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:43 PM<br>To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review@opensource.org><br>Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hi Nigel,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>My general sense of the license-review discussion of the UCL, and this is confirmed for me by re-reading it now, is that opinion was mostly negative, with concerns being expressed about the asymmetrical nature of the license. This matches my personal view of the license. Thus I would recommend against approval.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Regarding NOSA 2.0, I'm afraid there has been no change in status. In the short term I would not expect NOSA 2.0 to be approved without substantial revisions, or else convincing justifications of arguably-problematic provisions. However there has been no 'up or down vote'. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Richard<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:34:54AM -0500, Nigel T wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I have not updated UCL given that there has been no updates from the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> OSI itself. I'd like to also request the status of the NOSA v2.0 <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> license submittal.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Nigel T <<a href="mailto:nigel.2048@gmail.com"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>nigel.2048@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > I am happy to revise and to get legal feedback but since I'm doing <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > this as an individual I have to ask nicely for folks to help me or <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > pay out of pocket.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > If we can get tentative consensus that requiring dual licensing for <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > derivative works is not an automatic disqualifier under the OSD <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > because of asymmetry, regardless of mechanism or wording then I will <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > engage with legal review. Otherwise there isn't much point.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > I'm glad that Josh sees that other projects besides mine may <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > benefit. The objective is to streamline one (of many) common form <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > of open source development that some (besides me) consider cumbersome today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > I view licenses from a developer centric perspective and some of <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > what we do in terms of licensing are work arounds balancing <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > contributing to the community and sustainability. Smaller open <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > source projects, companies, startups, etc operate in a different manner than say RedHat or Mozilla.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > There are many valid ways to do and promote open source.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > Regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > Nigel<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>gerv@mozilla.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> > wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> On 26/10/16 12:51, Nigel T wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> > That is a good point. So I would change this to any additions to <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> > this code must be licensed under both UCL 1.0 or later and Apache <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> > 2.0 or later.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> If both licenses are required, then your license is not the UCL 1.0 <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> or Apache 2.0, it's a combination of both which is itself a new set <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> of licensing terms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> This is not simple. I suggest you take some time to rethink and <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> consult lawyers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> Gerv<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> <a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-revie"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-revie</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >> w<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> >><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>