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

[Jim Wright]

Sure Josh - it's clearly not just a CLA even if we ourselves weren't going to use it for any other purposes, but in any event that doesn't matter as I hope to use it as an outbound too (and hope others will as well obviously).   

 Regards,
  Jim


On May 6, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:

> On 05/06/2014 12:06 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
>>> Huh?  I was assuming that Oracle *would* be distributing any such works
>>> under the UPL.  Why would they need a new license if they didn't intend
>>> to use it for outbound distribution?
>> 
>> My understanding is the UPL would replace or be an alternative to the
>> inbound Contributor License Agreement. So for example you would use
>> the UPL to contribute a piece of code to Java, but within the Java
>> codebase that code would then be GPL+proprietary dual licensed.
> 
> Jim?  Can you comment on this?  If Oracle is *only* going to be using
> this license inbound, then it's really a CLA, even though it looks like
> a license, as as such beyond the purview of this committee.
> 
> --Josh Berkus