29 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
As I work on the next version of my codebase, I've been wondering about a particular issue regarding licensing. Is the license you set forth applicable only to that particular program version, or is it binding to future versions of that work? I'm not necessarily speaking in terms of if someone creates a derivative of my work, but if I create subsequent versions of my own work. For instance, the currently released version of my code I opted to release as Public Domain. Would I be bound to use the same license from that version for all future versions, or can later versions be released under different licenses?

It's not that I'm particularly thinking of changing the license. I'm just wondering what my options are as the next release date nears. :thinking:
29 Sep, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I think you are the license holder so you can change it for future versions as you wish. But thats speaking out of my ass here, no idea.
29 Sep, 2008, Guest wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
The version you declared as public domain will remain as such, forever. People are free to more or less do as they please with that.

You are free to release a new version of the code under whatever license you wish, and your license can contain clauses which make it binding against future releases from you as well. But they will never be applicable on the one you releases as public domain.
29 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
The version you declared as public domain will remain as such, forever. People are free to more or less do as they please with that.

You are free to release a new version of the code under whatever license you wish, and your license can contain clauses which make it binding against future releases from you as well. But they will never be applicable on the one you releases as public domain.

I see. Thanks. :smile:
29 Sep, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
(Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)

Much of dealing with intellectual property rights is based on country of origin. For instance, whether a country is a signatory to the Berne Convention can really matter.

If dealing with the USA you may be able to revoke the grant of your license, after 35 years, if it falls under Section 203 Subsection 3 of the Title 17 - Copyright Law of the USA. Not sure if this has been tested (the law was written in 1978, so not to the 35 year mark yet).
29 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
(Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)

Much of dealing with intellectual property rights is based on country of origin. For instance, whether a country is a signatory to the Berne Convention can really matter.

If dealing with the USA you may be able to revoke the grant of your license, after 35 years, if it falls under Section 203 Subsection 3 of the Title 17 - Copyright Law of the USA. Not sure if this has been tested (the law was written in 1978, so not to the 35 year mark yet).

Interesting. Although, I have no intentions of even trying (were it possible) to revoke the license for the code that has already been released. I'm just not particularly sure at this point where I'll go with the license for the next version. I needed to be sure that I could change the license or otherwise create a new one for future versions if that's infact what I decided I wanted to do.

Thank you for the information. :smile:
29 Sep, 2008, Guest wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
If dealing with the USA you may be able to revoke the grant of your license, after 35 years, if it falls under Section 203 Subsection 3 of the Title 17 - Copyright Law of the USA. Not sure if this has been tested (the law was written in 1978, so not to the 35 year mark yet).


Interesting. If I'm reading that right it's effectively saying that once granted a license cannot be revoked until 35 years have passed. That sort of seems to imply that previous discussions where revoking the license came up as a tactic to use against a violator may not actually be possible.
29 Sep, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Violators change the story completely. I think the idea is that you can't revoke the license willy-nilly just because you feel like it. But people in violation of the license aren't being protected here.

And of course the license might have various clauses about revocation etc.
29 Sep, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
The version you declared as public domain will remain as such, forever. People are free to more or less do as they please with that.

You are free to release a new version of the code under whatever license you wish, and your license can contain clauses which make it binding against future releases from you as well. But they will never be applicable on the one you releases as public domain.


To further expand on that, the terms of the license you set at the time of release are binding, even if future versions change those terms. The user always has the option of remaining with the version whose license they feel comfortable with. That's because a license is treated as a contract, and you can't change the terms of a contract once both sides have accepted it, unless both sides accept the change.

For example, a friend of mine works for the city police department, and they run a 2005 version of some Microsoft product (I don't recall if it's SQL Server, or some other thing). When asked why they didn't upgrade to 2008, they replied that they had some 500 seats, and that the new license required them to pay per seat, whereas the older one did not. It would cost them an extra million or so a year to upgrade, just for the license changes.

You can make a license binding on future versions, although a newer version of the license can override that. You cannot release a new license to override an older one though, as the user can opt to remain with the earlier version that was granted. Violation of the terms of a license/contract already makes that contract void, so revoking a license isn't really possible. Put another way, if you feel that you need to revoke a license, you wrote the terms poorly.

Public Domain is special… it's a non-license. When you release something to Public Domain, it becomes the property of the public, and anyone is free to use it as they wish. That includes rebundling it and releasing it under a license! Of course, if you do your homework, and realize they didn't add anything to it, you can simply use the PD version instead, but MANY people don't do their homework.

I am, of course, speaking as a NON lawyer, and only mumbling about US copyright laws. I know even less about anywhere else….
29 Sep, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Interesting. If I'm reading that right it's effectively saying that once granted a license cannot be revoked until 35 years have passed. That sort of seems to imply that previous discussions where revoking the license came up as a tactic to use against a violator may not actually be possible.


A bare licence can indeed be revoked at will - but a contractual licence, or a licence coupled with an interest, cannot. Whether or not software licences such as the GPL (and presumably Diku, etc) are 'bare licences' is something that even lawyers disagree on, so I'm not going to go there again.

ยง 203 allows you to terminate a contract, revoke a signed transfer of copyright, etc.
29 Sep, 2008, Conner wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Wow, I'm rather impressed, this is the most interesting and illuminating discussion I've seen yet on any mud related forum regarding copyrights/licenses. I guess all this time we were bantering back and forth in the past about these issues we were really just waiting for the right question to be asked. Good job on figuring out what that question was Lobotomy. :smile:
29 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Wow, I'm rather impressed, this is the most interesting and illuminating discussion I've seen yet on any mud related forum regarding copyrights/licenses. I guess all this time we were bantering back and forth in the past about these issues we were really just waiting for the right question to be asked. Good job on figuring out what that question was Lobotomy. :smile:

Thanks. :thinking:

Although, I'm still slightly confused by what quixadhal said; or rather, how it was worded. Are you saying that if I release the next version of my code, people who use it can stick to the license (or non-license, however that works) for the prior version, or does using the next version absolutely require that they agree to the license that comes with it (if any)? I'd suspect the latter to be the case, but all the legalese has my brain struggling to make absolute sense of it. :sad:
29 Sep, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
It's the latter, he meant they can opt to still use the previous version and the license that it was licenses under and that the license of the new version doesn't retroactively cover the previous version.
30 Sep, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes it's the latter. If you release a new version of your code, you are also releasing a new version of your license. It may happen to be identical to the previous one, but it doesn't have to be. I was simply trying to say that if you revise your license in a newer version, you can't force people who are using your old code (and your old license) to upgrade. They can choose to stick with the older version.

That just means that if you don't like the terms of the license you wrote, you can't change it and force that change onto people. Once you release it, it's available in that form.
30 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
I see. :thinking:
30 Sep, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
That just means that if you don't like the terms of the license you wrote, you can't change it and force that change onto people.


If it's a bare licence you certainly can, simply by revoking the old licence. Some lawyers argue licences such as the GPL are bare licences, while some argue the opposite; there's currently no way to be sure how mud licences would be classified.

Other forms of licence may contain expiration clauses, require yearly renewal, etc.

This issue is not as simple as you seem to think.
30 Sep, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Few things are (as simple as I'd like to think). :)

To me, the whole concept of trying to force a change of terms on an already accepted license is far too similar to "bait and switch" to be comfortable. But, that's probably why I never got into law. I like to argue, but I let things like common sense and what (I think of as) right-vs-wrong get in the way of what's correct.

Your best bet may be to just spell out a clause in your license somewhere that allows you to revoke or replace it in the future, or just not worry about it and assume that your updates will be desirable enough that people will accept whatever changes you put in newer licenses to get the newer features/bugfixes/etc.

Or, I suppose, find yourself a lawyer who enjoys licensing/contract perusal, is not clueless about the IT industry, and won't charge you (much) to critique it before you release it.
30 Sep, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
I spoke to a lawyer a few times about this – our lab had a lawyer working there – and he said that what it really comes down to in the end of the day is how the agreement is interpreted. That is, what exactly happens when you accept a software license from somebody. Since this has not really been tested in court, it's hard to say where things would go. Even the usage you make of the software can matter; for instance, if you accept a license at face value and make the software a core part of your business, (he thought) you would have a stronger position if the developer decided to start playing games with revoking it – even if the license said you could revoke it.

Well, anyhow and as usual, we'd have to see what courts say. This is probably the first legal discussion where that has been the consensus instead of everybody acting like they know exactly what's going on. :wink:
30 Sep, 2008, Caius wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
I've also sometimes seen software released under more than one license (for the same version of said software), where the end user can choose which license he wishes to use. These can be either two open-source and/or free licenses, or they can be like GPL vs a commercial license.
30 Sep, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
To me, the whole concept of trying to force a change of terms on an already accepted license is far too similar to "bait and switch" to be comfortable. But, that's probably why I never got into law. I like to argue, but I let things like common sense and what (I think of as) right-vs-wrong get in the way of what's correct.


Then look at it from a common sense perspective.

If I invite you into my house, then I've granted you a bare licence - I cannot sue you for trespass. But I can revoke that licence by asking you to leave, and if you refuse then you are infringing on my property rights.

Can you imagine the chaos that would result if such an invitation could never be revoked? You invite someone into your house once, and from that point on they can enter whenever they like, stay as long as they wish, and your only recourse is to move to a new home?

If you don't want the licence to be revocable, then make sure it isn't a bare licence.
0.0/34