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

[Jim Wright]

Others may weigh in, but IMHO, people commonly interpret at least some other permissive licenses similarly, especially the MIT license since it includes an express right to sublicense.  I have, however, seen some disagreement on the topic in various contexts (see, e.g., http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179), and I am aiming for improved clarity here, thus spelling it out explicitly in the UPL.

Best,
 Jim

>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 09/04/2014 05:49 AM, Jim Wright wrote:
>> Specific pass-through license requirements or scope limitations like not being able to remove conditions of the inbound license don't necessarily mean you are required to license outbound under identical terms.  You can offer another license for the code, and are not required to offer a license under the UPL yourself, it's just that the terms you choose may not, e.g., remove the notice condition imposed by the original authors.  So it's "or".
> 
> OK, that doesn't make intuitive sense to this layman.  Can a lawyer on
> this list comment?
> 
> Jim, the reason I'm after this point is that your text is different from
> the MIT, BSD and PostgreSQL licenses in this respect.  I'm trying to
> find out if the difference is significant -- or could be *made* to be
> significant by 3rd parties.
> 
> --Josh Berkus
>