{"id":"CUA-OPL-1.0","title":"CUA Office Public License v1.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://opensource.org/license/CUA-OPL-1.0","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The CUA Office Public License is the Mozilla Public License 1.1 with the CUA Office Project as steward: the same two-part grant, the same file-level reciprocity on modifications, the same LEGAL file, the same patent retaliation and the same Californian choice of law. The record follows the MPL-1.1 record of this library statement for statement. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"dcmitype:Software alone, following MPL-1.1, the parent text, and the two Eclipse records of this family. The licence covers Covered Code and Modifications, which is software.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Section 2.1(a) grants rights \"to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work\", so dalicc:sublicense is a permission, and 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) grant patent licences, so dalicc:patentGrant is one. Commercial use is contemplated throughout, so cc:CommercialUse and dalicc:chargeDistributionFee are permitted.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense, because section 3.1 says \"The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1\"; dalicc:promote, because section 6.3 forbids the phrases \"CUA Office\", \"CUA\", \"CUAPL\" or any confusingly similar phrase in the name of a modified licence; and dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination from section 8.2.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:ChangeLicense","description":"Section 3.6 lets You \"distribute the Executable version of Covered Code or ownership rights under a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License\". A dalicc:ChangeLicense permission with a dalicc:compliantLicense duty would express it, but it would contradict the prohibition that section 3.1 requires for the source form, and the MPL-1.1 record takes the same decision. The clause is quoted instead.","action":"proposed"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Section 3.1 governs the Modifications by this licence and requires a copy of the licence with every copy of the Source Code; 3.2 requires any Modification to be made available in Source Code form; 3.3 requires a file documenting the changes and a prominent statement of derivation; 3.5 requires the Exhibit A notice in each file. cc:ShareAlike, cc:SourceCode, cc:Attribution and cc:Notice therefore hang on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive, with dalicc:modificationNotice on the last two. The reciprocity is file-level, so it hangs on the acts rather than on the licence, exactly as in MPL-1.1.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:WarrantyOrLiabilityAcceptance","description":"Section 7 is quoted into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer, section 9 into dalicc:LiabilityLimitation and the warranty and support offer of section 3.5 into dalicc:WarrantyOrLiabilityAcceptance. dalicc:additionalClauses carries sections 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 6.3, 8, 10, 11 and 13.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"Section 11 chooses Californian law and the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California. The record keeps cc:jurisdiction dalicc:worldwide and quotes the clause, as the MPL records do.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The LEGAL file of section 3.4 could use dalicc:includeNoticeFile, but MPL-1.1, the parent record, quotes it instead and this record follows. The termination and cure period of section 8.1 have no property; proposed dalicc:terminatesOnBreach with a companion for the cure period.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer with the axioms of dg_default returned an empty list for this record.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"family","description":"Against MPL-1.1 the differences are the steward, the licence name in section 6.3 and the reference to the NPL in section 13. The deontic model is identical, which is the answer to whether a separate record is justified: it is, because the SPDX id and the notice text differ, but a reader should treat the two as one licence.","action":"none"}],"family":"Eclipse, Common Public and Lucent","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text of CUA-OPL-1.0 and checked against the URL in cc:legalcode. The licence is grouped with the Eclipse and Common Public family in this review group, but its parent is the Mozilla Public License 1.1."}