<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>I have one working through public release and a couple more coming.</div>
<br>
<br>
Sent with BlackBerry Work<br>
(www.blackberry.com)<br>
<br>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com">bruce@perens.com</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Wednesday, Oct 03, 2018, 7:00 PM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Um. Since it sounds from your description that the original submitter of the UCL license didn't get an opportunity to use it, are there any known users?
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Bruce</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:44 PM Nigel T <<a href="mailto:nigel.2048@gmail.com">nigel.2048@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 3:49 AM, Elmar Stellnberger <<a href="mailto:estellnb@elstel.org" target="_blank">estellnb@elstel.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
The “upstream” license is defined to be Apache 2.0 or later.<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
Apache is widely understood. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
> 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;'<br>
> - 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.<br>
<br>
I believe that “shall” in legal terms means “has a duty to”. Perhaps it should be “must”.
<br>
<br>
Hmmm...<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering<br>
Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder, Open Source Initiative
<div>President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom Initiative.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>