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

[Jim Wright]

See comments inline.

 Regards,
  Jim

On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison <brlcad at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:58 AM, license-review-request at opensource.org wrote:
> 
>> After some thought, I believe that whether future versions of the Software or Larger Works are to be licensed is better left to the larger works designation, since this will permit either a license grant covering only the work as of the date of the contribution (therefore rendering the license closer to the way most of us interpret the MIT license in the absence of a larger works file, only with well defined patent grants), or a broader grant, depending on the desired application.
> 
> Since this is intended to be "universally permissive", I'd expect the default be language to be one that permits universal use, noninfringing derivative or original sources, not one defined very narrowly based on contents of a larger works file.
> 
> Maybe call it the "Generally Permissive License".. ;)
> 

LOL… Well, I think this does that actually - it doesn't license every patent a patent holder has on any potential derivative, but it *does* allow basically any use which does not infringe new patent rights infringed due to modification.



>>> I have listened to the questions and comments of the various parties in our recent meetings, and here is a proposal for use of a revised UPL and some background on my thinking as per our discussion.  The revised UPL reads as follows:
> 
> I don't think it's been said, or I missed it, but I certainly appreciate that you've taken time to digest and revise instead of just defend.  This license is getting so much discussion because it is interesting.
> 


Thanks.  I am actually trying to do something positive for both Oracle and everyone else as well here, and if making a few changes makes it more usable while still meeting the need, so much the better!  I think people who haven't actually met me or spent any time talking with me may sometimes immediately pigeonhole me in the role of agent of the evil empire, but I this impression dissolves almost instantly once I start talking to someone… and my independence is kinda why they gave me this gig.



>>> (b) any piece of software and/or hardware listed in the LARGER_WORKS.TXT file if one is included with the Software
> 
> The complaints about assuming a filesystem, case, and file extensions still remain.  Perhaps you could templatize this aspect similarly, e.g., "software and/or hardware listed in <other works file> if one is included".  Or perhaps blatantly call it a <patent rights file> to convey the intent.
> 


I'm going to fix this with one more rev - lrgrworks.txt will work.  I don't want to use a substitutable name because that's error prone and will also make automated searches more difficult but 8.3 is easy enough if important.



>>> (each a "Larger Work" to which the Software is contributed by such licensors),
> 
> What?  Each software and/or hardware listed contains the Software?  Each LARGER_WORKS.TXT file?  The wording and intent seem ambiguous to me.

The Software is contributed to those things listed in the file - it would be up to the licensor of the Larger Works what is actually used obviously.  And if there are Qs on how best to use this, I'll be putting examples in the FAQ.



> 
>>> create derivative works of (provided that this does not license additional patent claims beyond those covering the unmodified Software
> 
> Creating a derivative work does not license additional patent claims.  Should that have been "does not infringe additional patent claims"?

No, but granting a license to create a derivative work might be construed by some to potentially license additional patent claims - so we're clarifying that it doesn't.


> 
>>> Larger Works
> 
> I'm a legal noephyte and perhaps this is common knowledge, but the definition of a Larger Work seems undefined here.  Conventionally, I'd expect that to simply be some other work not necessarily covered by the terms of this license, yet in this context we are covering terms for that work here.

No, you got it right - the Larger Work can be anything you want, and on whatever terms you want, subject to the limitations of the grant in the UPL (e.g., requiring a UPL notice).


> 
>>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
> 
> How is this true?  If I take the Software exactly as-is from the licensor, how do I not have an expressed warranty of non infringement?

Because we're disclaiming it!  (These words are taken from the MIT license without modification.)

> 
>>> - One, it removes the reference to future versions of the Software and Larger Works from the base license text and pushes this, for the purpose of the JCP, to the larger works file, and limits the scope of those future versions in that larger works file to the final RI and Maintenance Releases.  I deemed this ok for use in various other contexts as well, as you can recover all or some future versions of whatever you are seeking the license for by referring to it in the larger works file where appropriate.
> 
> This is back to my very first point.  I would expect the default of a "universally permissive" license to extend to future versions by default and let some larger/other works file narrow that scope if so desired.

The copyright license certainly does permit future revisions, and the patent license will likely extend to them as well to the extent not infringing any new patents - the question is whether new claims that would otherwise be infringed by a later version are licensed, and since we need to be able to have this not be the case for all uses, pushing it to the Larger Works file serves the purpose.  If you leave it in the base license, then you can't narrow it, but with the change, we can have it either way, so this is more "universal" in that it allows the most flexible use case.


> 
>>> signatories would still retain their defensive termination rights
> 
> Does this mean a given patent grant can be revoked?  That would be blatantly anti-open source, philosophically speaking, in my view.  What a great way to sabotage a product or community on a whim.  Again, legal neophyte.

This is related to the JCP agreements, not the UPL, and can be ignored for the purpose of this discussion.  :-)




> 
> Cheers!
> Sean
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140912/0c4f2334/attachment.html>