3 ms·

so if you select Unlicense as your license (which github offers in a list just like MIT) is it even possible to go back to MIT after >= 1 commit?

dragonwriter 6y ago
Why wouldn't it be? To the extent that some sort of the previous content was licenses under me generous terms, you couldn't prevent anything legally dependent only on the earliest work from being used under the earlier terms, to the extent the Unlicense is valid in the applicable jurisdiction, though.
- andrewfromx 6y ago
  but wasn't the act already done on date1, i release it, i even released my own copyright to it. I did things that are not even legal in Germany!? And this is something github offers as like the 2nd best other option than MIT?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > but wasn't the act already done on date1, i release it, i even released my own copyright to it. Even where the unlicense has legal effect, releasing your copyright on A doesn’t stop you from having a copyright on the combination of A+B if B would be independently copyrightable. It does mean that copyright won’t be usable on people copying only from A, though. Of course, where the unlicense isn’t legally effective in the first place, it has no impact on your choice of license for later works incorporating all or part of the earlier work.
    - andrewfromx 6y ago
      ok so my github project created 17 days ago with unlicense I recently checked in a change to the file LICENSE and then today I reverted it: https://github.com/andrewarrow/base9/commit/f920f311b1b0afe863e340303f9b95bdeae74584 https://github.com/andrewarrow/base9/commit/f920f311b1b0afe8... but if I CAN go mit now, surely I have to rename my project and make a new repo? If I continue in repo as is, years go by, can't someone argue the change to MIT didn't have the legal authority to remove it from the public domain?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > but if I CAN go mit now, surely I have to rename my project and make a new repo? No. > If I continue in repo as is, years go by, can't someone argue the change to MIT didn't have the legal authority to remove it from the public domain? To the extent the Unlicense is valid in the jurisdiction whose law would apply, they would certainly have the right to use any material previously released under that license under its terms. That doesn’t obligate you to continue hosting it with that license, or to use a different project name for a derivative you distribute with a more recent license, or even notify that you ever had some part of it offered under the Unlicense. It may prevent you from distributing exactly the same content with a copyright claim, so its probably best to make the license change with a substantive code change.
      - andrewfromx 6y ago
        ok, makes sense, but there does seem to be some gray area with how substantial the code change has to be. And when I start a new repo, I'm going to stop using unlicense. I feel like I was tricked.

dragonwriter 6y ago

Why wouldn't it be? To the extent that some sort of the previous content was licenses under me generous terms, you couldn't prevent anything legally dependent only on the earliest work from being used under the earlier terms, to the extent the Unlicense is valid in the applicable jurisdiction, though.

andrewfromx 6y ago
but wasn't the act already done on date1, i release it, i even released my own copyright to it. I did things that are not even legal in Germany!? And this is something github offers as like the 2nd best other option than MIT?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > but wasn't the act already done on date1, i release it, i even released my own copyright to it. Even where the unlicense has legal effect, releasing your copyright on A doesn’t stop you from having a copyright on the combination of A+B if B would be independently copyrightable. It does mean that copyright won’t be usable on people copying only from A, though. Of course, where the unlicense isn’t legally effective in the first place, it has no impact on your choice of license for later works incorporating all or part of the earlier work.
  - andrewfromx 6y ago
    ok so my github project created 17 days ago with unlicense I recently checked in a change to the file LICENSE and then today I reverted it: https://github.com/andrewarrow/base9/commit/f920f311b1b0afe863e340303f9b95bdeae74584 https://github.com/andrewarrow/base9/commit/f920f311b1b0afe8... but if I CAN go mit now, surely I have to rename my project and make a new repo? If I continue in repo as is, years go by, can't someone argue the change to MIT didn't have the legal authority to remove it from the public domain?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > but if I CAN go mit now, surely I have to rename my project and make a new repo? No. > If I continue in repo as is, years go by, can't someone argue the change to MIT didn't have the legal authority to remove it from the public domain? To the extent the Unlicense is valid in the jurisdiction whose law would apply, they would certainly have the right to use any material previously released under that license under its terms. That doesn’t obligate you to continue hosting it with that license, or to use a different project name for a derivative you distribute with a more recent license, or even notify that you ever had some part of it offered under the Unlicense. It may prevent you from distributing exactly the same content with a copyright claim, so its probably best to make the license change with a substantive code change.
    - andrewfromx 6y ago
      ok, makes sense, but there does seem to be some gray area with how substantial the code change has to be. And when I start a new repo, I'm going to stop using unlicense. I feel like I was tricked.