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

[Henrik Ingo]

I concur. This doesn't even have to be seen as a sign of lack of trust,
having a (inpependent) lawyer analyze a newly written license is just
proper due diligence.

Other than that, I also concur with everything in Josh Berkus' email that
followed.

Henrik
On 13 Apr 2014 11:03, "Chris DiBona" <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have to admit that considering it is oracle (is that correct?) who wrote
> this and their position as a belligerent in so many horrific IP cases, hat
> we shouldn't accept this in any way until we get real counsel investigating
> every syllable of this license.
> On Apr 12, 2014 12:59 PM, "Tom Marble" <tmarble at info9.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140413/7679dd09/attachment.html>