[License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive License (UPL)

[Tom Marble]

On 04/10/2014 07:39 PM, Jim Wright wrote:
> [...]
> Rationale & Comparison to Similar Licenses
> [...]
> obtaining a copy of this software, associated documentation and/or data (collectively the "Software")
> [...]
> (b) any piece of software and/or hardware [...]

Could you elaborate on the intent of "and/or hardware"? Is the UPL attempting
to an "open source hardware" license? If so, could you please explain how the UPL
differs from existing hardware licenses, such as the TAPR Open Hardware License (OHL)
and the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL)? How does the challenges presented
in hardware that have led some to believe FLOSS licenses are not adequate, vis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_hardware#Licenses ?

If not could you please provide the rationale for including hardware
in clause "b)"?

> [...] listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file included with the Software
> (each a “Larger Work” to which the Software is contributed by such licensors),

As Gerv and Karl have pointed out this clause "b)" is curious
and problematic. What, exactly, is "b)" hoping to achieve?

Why would the UPL attempt to shortcut licensing clarity for any
other works for which the copyright owner of this work may also
(trivially) be the copyright owner of some other works?
As they say.. "disk space is cheap": why try to declare other
works in the ancillary LARGER_WORKS.TXT text file instead of
giving each such work it's own LICENSE file?

Alternatively if LARGER_WORKS.TXT attempts to document all
potential downstream applications of this work and its
use in derivative works *ad infinitum*... isn't that
simply impossible?

Or do we understand this explicit elaboration of works as
a technique for limiting the scope of the gratis patent grant?
In other words the is UPL attempting to provide a patent
grant to assuage concerns of a certain audience about
potential infringement in using the "Software", but
only in a limited set of combinations listed in LARGER_WORKS.TXT?
Must each patent holder *give explicit permission*
for any use of the "Software" in LARGER_WORKS.TXT
including any downstream and derivative uses?

In this interpretation does the UPL actually provide
much value beyond MIT?

Does the UPL meet the spirit of the Open Source Definition
(esp. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor)?

> It also expressly permits relicensing to facilitate use with both copyleft and commercial licenses

Could you point that bit of the UPL?

> [...] is GPL compatible.

Presumably this is asserting GPLv2 compatibility as GPLv3 is, by design, AL2 compatible.
Could you please justify this assertion?

Respectfully,

--Tom

p.s. It's worth noting that software is not, in fact, patentable under
     §101 and the Supreme Court will hopefully clarify this in
     the Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International decision.