{"id":"LPL-1.0","title":"Lucent Public License Version 1.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://opensource.org/license/LPL-1.0","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The Lucent Public License is the Common Public License with the source-form reciprocity removed: a distributor may distribute the Program in any form under its own license agreement, provided the agreement disclaims the warranties, excludes the liability and says that differing provisions come from the distributor alone. The record therefore carries a dalicc:ChangeLicense permission with a dalicc:compliantLicense duty and no share-alike duty, which is the shape EclipsePublicLicense10 uses. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"dcmitype:Software alone, following EclipsePublicLicense10 and EPL-2.0, the two records of this family already in the library. The text licenses a Program, that is software in source code and object code form, so neither dalicc:CreativeWork nor dcmitype:Dataset is written.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Section 2(a) grants the right \"to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor\", so dalicc:sublicense is a permission, and 2(b) grants a patent licence, so dalicc:patentGrant is one. Section 3.A lets a Distributor \"distribute the Program in any form under this Agreement or under its own license agreement\", which is dalicc:ChangeLicense with a dalicc:compliantLicense duty, the pattern EclipsePublicLicense10 and Apache-2.0 use.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"Only dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination, from the general section: patent litigation against a Contributor ends the patent licences. There is no trademark clause, so dalicc:promote is not written, and no reciprocity clause, so dalicc:ChangeLicense is a permission rather than a prohibition.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Section 3.A.2 requires \"a copy of this Agreement or Distributor's own license agreement is included with each copy of the Program\" (cc:Notice); section 3.B requires the copyright legend in a conspicuous location (dalicc:addStatement); section 3.C requires each Contributor to identify itself as the originator of its Contribution (cc:Attribution, and dalicc:modificationNotice on odrl:modify and odrl:derive). cc:SourceCode is deliberately not written: the Lucent text drops the item of CPL section 3(b) that required a distributor's own licence to say where the source code is available.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Sections 5 and 6 are quoted into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation. dalicc:additionalClauses carries section 3, the commercial distribution indemnity, the export control clause where the version has one, the patent litigation clause, the termination clause, the steward clause and the governing-law clause.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The commercial distributor indemnity (proposed dalicc:commercialDistributorIndemnity) and the automatic termination on breach (proposed dalicc:terminatesOnBreach) have no terms and are quoted.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"The governing-law clause of version 1.0 reads \"the laws of the State of <STATE>\": the text is a template and names no legal system at all, so cc:jurisdiction stays dalicc:worldwide and the clause is quoted with its placeholder.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"family","description":"LPL-1.0 is the template form of LPL-1.02. It keeps the CPL sentence that excludes separate modules from the definition of a Contribution, requires a contributor to consent to the characterisation of its changes as a Contribution, and has no export control section. Both records carry the same deontic model.","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"}],"family":"Eclipse, Common Public and Lucent","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version","notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text of LPL-1.0 and checked against the URL in cc:legalcode. Version 1.0 is published as a template: the organisation, the owner, the copyright year and the governing state are left as placeholders in angle brackets, and the quoted clauses keep them."}