[License-discuss] [DISCUSS] PUWL v1.0 – P-EADCA Universal Waiver License

[Shuji Sado]

Hi Bruce-san, Pamela-san,

Thanks for your thoughtful “belt-and-suspenders” take on moral rights
(waive where possible + non-assertion + severability).
Since this thread is largely about software, a few data points from Japan
may help shape the clause:

- Unlike France (which narrows software under CPI L121-7), Japan does not
carve software out: the full triad—disclosure, attribution,
integrity—remains inalienable for programs as well.
- Under Japan’s work-made-for-hire rule for programs (Art. 15(2)), the
corporation can be the author, and moral rights are understood to vest in
that corporate author.
- Where “natural persons” are the authors, practice relies on non-assertion
covenants rather than blanket waivers.

Net effect: in Japanese software practice, a pure “waiver” rarely bites on
its own. Your pattern fits well. A compact, travel-ready clause could be:
> Moral Rights:
> To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, each Licensor and
Contributor waives and agrees not to assert any moral rights (including
rights of attribution, integrity, and disclosure) in the Work and
Contributions. Where such waiver is not permitted, each Licensor and
Contributor irrevocably covenants not to assert such rights and consents to
all acts that would otherwise infringe them, including modification,
combination, and omission of attribution, provided there is no false
attribution of authorship. This provision is severable and survives to the
extent enforceable in any jurisdiction.

This keeps your structure, tolerates jurisdictions that forbid waivers, and
still works in Japan, where non-assertion is the operative tool for
software.

As you know, most OSI-style licenses are silent on moral rights. In
Japanese practice, the broad permission to modify and create derivatives
often functions in effect as a non-assertion of integrity-type claims, and
we haven’t seen widespread disputes in day-to-day OSS use. That said,
depending on the jurisdiction and facts, modifications that are prejudicial
to an author’s honor or reputation could theoretically raise issues—even
under permissive licenses like MIT or copyleft licenses like GPL.

Best,

2025/10/7 21:22 Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>:

> To answer Pam's question, this is the French declaration, highlights mine:
>
> Art. 5. The title of an intellectual work, always provided that it is
> original, enjoys the same protection as the work itself. No person may take
> the title of a work, even if that work is no longer protected under
> articles 21 and 22, to designate a work of the same type if the use of such
> title could give rise to confusion. Art. 6. The author has the right to
> respect for his name, his status and his works. This right is vested in his
> person. It is perpetual, inalienable and indefeasible. On the author's
> death it can be transmitted to his heirs. The exercise of this right can be
> transferred to a third person by testamentary disposition.
>
> An affirmative patent grant might be a useful differentiation from the
> other licenses, but he's not there yet.
>
> As I think we have made clear every time a newby approaches
> license-discuss the license _user_ community, the developers themselves,
> are in general poorly educated on license issues and for the most part
> uninterested in improving that education, they want to program or be users.
> Which is fine, we need that. But it means we should do a little more to
> make sure they understand some of the implications of the license, for
> example that they don't, or at least don't reliably get the right to claim
> authorship of the work.
>
> Thus, an explanatory text that is separate from the license but easily
> available might be of value.
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 11:47 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/4/2025 2:59 PM, Balázs Hámorszky wrote:
>> > In jurisdictions where attribution or other moral rights cannot be
>> > fully waived, the author does not require their name to be displayed
>> > beyond the minimal extent required by law,
>> Are there jurisdictions that do not allow you to waive attribution?
>>
>> I would also like to see an explanation of how all the other licenses
>> that attempt to achieve this fail, and how this license has remedied
>> their flaws.
>>
>> Pam
>>
>>
>> Pamela S. Chestek
>> Chestek Legal
>> 4641 Post St.
>> Unit 4316
>> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
>> +1 919-800-8033
>> pamela at chesteklegal.com
>> www.chesteklegal.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>>
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Perens K6BP
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Shuji Sado
Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
https://opensource.jp/
English blog: https://shujisado.org/
Japanese blog: https://shujisado.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251017/e82ff3c8/attachment.htm>