Re: Use Oracle’s UPL, Abandon Your Intellectual Property
Even with the current and future battles over the JCP being set aside, I agree that this Oracle proposal is far too broad and potentially damaging to the fundamental value of the open source development community. The impact would be a slow and insidious withdrawal from the open source development community as they collectively found out that they passively, accidentally lost all future IP to a separate party.
UPL would make open software maintenance too risky, legally, for any of the submitters. Initially, there would be ignorance, litigation, then eventually, suspension of open engagement. This is counter to the whole premise of open source -- especially when compared to most of the existing open license agreements.
For others who are interested, the interesting discussion on this is at:
..where the defenses made to the value/usefulness of this proposal appear to be weak and self-fulfilling.
I agree with Mr. Fink regarding this point. This is a bad idea and, frankly, appears to be a semi-transparent grab for free "magnetic IP" (especially when considering the possible future likelihood that it will be the mechanism for even more extreme JCP control). Support of open source software should not induce passive theft of IP. The alternative MIT license clearly and openly exposes a reliquishment of some of these future rights, whereas this UPL license proposal seems to do this passively/implicitly. Even using the "LARGER WORKS" mechanism does not address this issue adequately, in my opinion.