[License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017

[Josh berkus]

On 01/09/2017 08:49 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:08:26AM -0800, Josh berkus wrote:
>> On 01/08/2017 07:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>>
>>> Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0)
>>> =============================================
>>>
>>> Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-October/002856.html
>>>
>>> Comments: Questions were raised about conformance with the
>>> nondiscrimination policy of OSD 5. It was suggested that the license
>>> be redrafted so that all downstream modifications are licensed under
>>> the Apache License 2.0 (rather than just upstream licensors receiving
>>> a copy under the Apache License 2.0).
>>>
>>> Recommendation: At request of license submitter and others, OSI to
>>> provide general guidance by commenting on whether a license that
>>> privileges one class of licensees by giving it greater permissions
>>> relative to other licensees conflicts with OSD or should be
>>> discouraged or disapproved for non-OSD policy reasons.
>>
>> Again, there was follow-up on this where we suggested an improvement to
>> the structure of this language, and the submitter was waiting on
>> feedback from the committee that that improvement would make it more
>> acceptable.  They never got it.
> 
> Here's my understanding of the situation:
> 
> Nigel proposed UCL, a license which is basically: "OSL 3.0, except
> that upstream licensors get downstream modifications under the Apache
> License 2.0". Some comments suggested that this asymmetrical licensing
> feature conflicted with OSD5. Others argued that it would be incorrect
> to ground a policy objection to such a feature in the OSD.
> 
> I believe you and Nigel proposed that the OSI board provide some
> general guidance on whether asymmetrical features like that which is
> the main distinctive feature of UCL are inherently in conflict with
> the OSD (or alternatively should not be approved because of some
> policy rationale extrinsic to the OSD).
> 
> I believe you proposed an alternative approach under which all
> modifications to code originally released under the (copyleft) UCL
> would be licensed under the Apache License 2.0. This still seems to
> have some 'asymmetry' but not to the same degree as the original
> UCL. I think Nigel said he was willing to consider implementing this
> approach but would wait for feedback from the OSI.
> 
> So the immediate action is for the OSI board to consider whether to
> provide some guidance about the relevance of asymmetrical licensing
> features in proposed licenses. The fact that a 'less asymmetrical'
> approach to designing the UCL has been proposed has been passed on to
> the OSI board.

Cool, thanks, wanted to make sure that was covered.