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

[Jim Wright]

John, the copyright terms there *do* serve a purpose, they serve to scope the copyright license to the Software and simply don't apply to the Larger Works since those are not the subject of the copyright grant.  On the other hand, if we removed those copyright terms completely, there would be no express declaration of the right, e.g., to create derivative works of the Software, so the enumerated copyright rights need to stay in for the license to serve its purpose.  One just needs to keep in mind that the stated copyright rights only apply to the code as to which a copyright license is granted to begin with.

 Regards,
  Jim

> On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:30 PM, cowan at ccil.org wrote:
> 
> Allison Randal scripsit:
> 
>> That's because you are. Permissive licenses (MIT, BSD, and others)
>> permit you to redistribute the work under any terms, even a proprietary
>> license, as long as you meet the explicit requirements of the license.
>> Those requirements can be as simple as "retain the copyright notice".
> 
> Yes, but this purports to grant rights not only to "the Software" but
> also to "Larger Works" written by someone else.  Clearly that language
> is not effective (you can't grant away someone else's rights), but it's
> confusing and should be stricken.
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of
> his own
> skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and
> among
> other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague.  --Edsger Dijkstra
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review