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

[Simon Phipps]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>wrote:

>
> However, what the UPL is proposing to do is not the same. With the UPL
> I could say "this code is licensed to be used with the Linux kernel,
> but no license was given to use this code in MySQL" (even though both
> of those are GPLv2 licensed). This would essentially allow me to
> arbitrarily license code to some recipients and not others. (The "not"
> part here referring to the fact that a patent license is then
> explicitly withheld from the others.)
>

I don't read it that way. I see it saying:
(a)  You have a copyright license to this Software. If this Software
infringes any of the licensor's patents, you have a license to them.
(b)  In addition, if ANY code in ANY software or hardware project listed in
LARGER_WORKS.TXT infringes any of the licensor's patents, you also have a
patent license to them

As I read it, (b) grants additional rights in the (optional) event there
are any projects listed by the licensor in LARGER_WORKS.TXT - it does not
limit the rights to only the projects listed in the TXT file.

This would be clearer perhaps if the text read:

> (a) the Software, and in addition
> (b) any piece of software and/or hardware listed in a LARGER_WORKS.TXT
> file if one is included with the Software (each a “Larger Work” to which
> the Software is contributed by such licensors),


S.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140415/c5f1b004/attachment.html>