4 ms·

> As the nearly-sole contributor, the author can violate his own license for the code he created. To be more specific, it is not in a violation of copyright. I

> As the nearly-sole contributor, the author can violate his own license for the code he created. To be more specific, it is not in a violation of copyright. I am pretty sure that when I publish my code under any standard* licence it is not an exclusive license. I can still sell access on a more business friendly licence, publish it under CC0 and so on. *is there even serious licence that includes "no dual licencing" exclusivity clause that is binding the author? Is it even possible to do as a licence?

wongarsu 7y ago
> Is it even possible to do as a licence? I guess you could draft it as some kind of exclusivity licence "this work will only ever be available under this licence". You would still own the copyright, just contractually bound not to exercise it. But even that wouldn't be very convincing. If the author republishes under another licence this isn't in violation of copyright or any criminal law, it's more like "I gave written agreement not to do something I have the legal right to do, did it anyway, and nobody can demonstrate any damages. Sue me"
ben509 7y ago
> Is it even possible to do as a licence? IANAL, but a license, can't, in itself, restrict anyone's rights because it is a grant of usage, and a more restrictive licenses is really a lesser grant. In the case of software licenses, the rights were already restricted by the claim of copyright. And that's generally the case: you give someone license to enter your home, which they were implicitly restricted from by your holding the right to passage about your property. The legal mechanism that lets you negotiate to restrict your or others rights is a contract, and that's completely different from a license.