5 ms·

What would you need to defend?

by scdlbx 17y ago

eru 17y ago
Scenario: Alice writes a program, puts it under that licence, Bob uses the program, Alice dies and her heir Eve wants to get money from Bob for using the software. Eve tries to get a court to declare the licence invalid, so that Bob has to re-licence the program under new conditions or stop using it.
- viraptor 17y ago
  Assuming that it's possible at all to declare the WTFPL invalid (why would it be?) - he can re-licence the program to a licence giving everyone exactly the same rights. It is allowed by WTFPL.
  - tedunangst 17y ago
    Bob is not the copyright owner. He can't re-licence it to anything. What he can do is re-license a right to use the program, under terms specified by the copyright owner. I've attached extra meaning to c vs s in the word licence, but the definition you used is not the same as parent.
    - eru 17y ago
      Yes. And if the new copyright owner Eve declares the original license invalid, Bob won't be able to re-licence (or even use the program any longer). Also Alice and Eve could be the same person who just changed her mind.
      - viraptor 17y ago
        I don't think that's true. Eve can change the licence on her work. That doesn't affect any copy that Bob obtained beforehand. You cannot change the licence in a way that affects things already released - otherwise you'd be able to release something under BSD and after a year say "I'm changing the terms, new licence requires everyone to pay me X, even if you obtained the software on BSD terms". Referring to the WTFPL author (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/): Can’t you change the wording? It’s inappropriate / childish / not corporate-compliant. What the fuck is not clear in “DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO”? If you do not like the license terms, just relicense the work under another license.
        eru 17y ago
        Yes, you can't normally do this --- as long as the license is valid. That's why you may need to defend it in court. (Eve may want the court to decide that the license never gave the right in the first place.)
- Jeema3000 17y ago
  Eve could do that, for sure. Nothing in the license forbids it. Declaring the license invalid and requiring users to re-license it does fall under 'what the fuck you want to' according to my interpretation of the license. But then again, I believe so does 'doing what the fuck I want to', so there's that too...
TallGuyShort 17y ago
If I'm not mistaken, the GPL has had to be defended in court several times. It's a situation where someone tries to charge money for a product, but a GPL'd source code was used in the product. That particular situation doesn't apply to this license however, since you can, apparently, do whatever you want.
- ajross 17y ago
  The GPL has nothing to do with "charging money", so no, that's never been tested in court. And in any case, in a suit regarding any distribution license, it is the copyright owner who would bring the suit, forcing the alleged infringer to "defend" the case.
  - TallGuyShort 17y ago
    Sorry - I was indeed mistaken about the "charging money" aspect of it. However, the GPL has been successfully defended in court: http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_fran...

What would you need to defend?

by scdlbx 17y ago

What would you need to defend?

eru 17y ago

Scenario: Alice writes a program, puts it under that licence, Bob uses the program, Alice dies and her heir Eve wants to get money from Bob for using the software. Eve tries to get a court to declare the licence invalid, so that Bob has to re-licence the program under new conditions or stop using it.

viraptor 17y ago
Assuming that it's possible at all to declare the WTFPL invalid (why would it be?) - he can re-licence the program to a licence giving everyone exactly the same rights. It is allowed by WTFPL.
- tedunangst 17y ago
  Bob is not the copyright owner. He can't re-licence it to anything. What he can do is re-license a right to use the program, under terms specified by the copyright owner. I've attached extra meaning to c vs s in the word licence, but the definition you used is not the same as parent.
  - eru 17y ago
    Yes. And if the new copyright owner Eve declares the original license invalid, Bob won't be able to re-licence (or even use the program any longer). Also Alice and Eve could be the same person who just changed her mind.
    - viraptor 17y ago
      I don't think that's true. Eve can change the licence on her work. That doesn't affect any copy that Bob obtained beforehand. You cannot change the licence in a way that affects things already released - otherwise you'd be able to release something under BSD and after a year say "I'm changing the terms, new licence requires everyone to pay me X, even if you obtained the software on BSD terms". Referring to the WTFPL author (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/): Can’t you change the wording? It’s inappropriate / childish / not corporate-compliant. What the fuck is not clear in “DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO”? If you do not like the license terms, just relicense the work under another license.
      - eru 17y ago
        Yes, you can't normally do this --- as long as the license is valid. That's why you may need to defend it in court. (Eve may want the court to decide that the license never gave the right in the first place.)
Jeema3000 17y ago
Eve could do that, for sure. Nothing in the license forbids it. Declaring the license invalid and requiring users to re-license it does fall under 'what the fuck you want to' according to my interpretation of the license. But then again, I believe so does 'doing what the fuck I want to', so there's that too...

TallGuyShort 17y ago

If I'm not mistaken, the GPL has had to be defended in court several times. It's a situation where someone tries to charge money for a product, but a GPL'd source code was used in the product. That particular situation doesn't apply to this license however, since you can, apparently, do whatever you want.

ajross 17y ago
The GPL has nothing to do with "charging money", so no, that's never been tested in court. And in any case, in a suit regarding any distribution license, it is the copyright owner who would bring the suit, forcing the alleged infringer to "defend" the case.
- TallGuyShort 17y ago
  Sorry - I was indeed mistaken about the "charging money" aspect of it. However, the GPL has been successfully defended in court: http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_fran...