4 ms·
> This is the same for Australian developers. I don't see any sign of this being the case in my searching. This document (https://www.lexology.com/library/deta
by asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> This is the same for Australian developers.
I don't see any sign of this being the case in my searching. This document (https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=628b5bca-b7d5-492b-8b9f-ee5a755e7917 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=628b5bca-b7d5...) suggests that Australia does recognize perpetual licenses ("Does the law in your jurisdiction recognise the validity of ‘perpetual’ software licences? ... Yes."). Would you provide a citation?
> For example, it is conceivable that someone who has contributed to a large project, say... Linux, has an issue with one particular corporation who have been found to acting unethically, say... Google. They can revoke the right to use their contributions to the Linux kernel by Google. They don't have to supply a reason for it.
As noted above, I'm skeptical that this right exists in Australia. But if it does, the worst that would happen is that a person's contributions would need to be removed from Linux. There are probably a handful of individuals who own the copyright to their works whose contributions would be difficult to replace, but most of them probably have sufficient economic or other incentives not to do something like what you're describing. That vast majority of new code written in Linux is written by employees of large corporations and isn't subject to this risk the same way.
> This is thus far untested in court
To say the least. It seems likely to me that courts in many jurisdictions would decide that an open source bait and switch was not what their corresponding legislatures had in mind when drafting license reversion rules. This risk seems unlikely to me, because you'd need a dev with plenty of wealth to pay lawyers, who also really hates some company beyond any practical economic extent, and also contributed a lot to Linux as a private individual. I don't know how many of that type of person you're going to find.
- shakna 5y ago> As noted above, I'm skeptical that this right exists in Australia. The right to control the integrity of one's work is a Moral Right, and moral rights fall outside of copyrights in Australia. A very basic introduction is here [0]. Granting the use of a work in perpetuity is permitted, but revoking that perpetuity is also permitted and cannot be limited. > But if it does, the worst that would happen is that a person's contributions would need to be removed from Linux. In the example I gave, Linux wouldn't need to make that change, as the revocation only occurred for a single sublicensee. The Foundation might choose to make that change, but they also might not. > because you'd need a dev with plenty of wealth to pay lawyers, who also really hates some company beyond any practical economic extent, and also contributed a lot to Linux as a private individual. I don't know how many of that type of person you're going to find. Individuals like Richard Stallman? He may not have direct wealth, but he has the means to obtain it. And the ideology necessary to become a thorn in the side of a particular corporation if he so chooses. [0] https://www.copyright.org.au/browse/book/ACC-Moral-Rights-INFO043 https://www.copyright.org.au/browse/book/ACC-Moral-Rights-IN...
- yeahforsureman 5y agoLooks like the moral rights regime in Australia is pretty similar to that in many civil law systems. You cannot just revoke your license based on the right of integrity. Where do you get that idea from? Based on the introduction, it works just like in most other systems: you would have to show derogatory treatment. And that, considering the nature of the work (computer code committed to an open source project), seems to be hard if not impossible in any conceivable circumstances.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago> In the example I gave, Linux wouldn't need to make that change, as the revocation only occurred for a single sublicensee. The other person already responded to your understanding of moral rights. I would also question this assumption. A copyleft license that excludes certain participants who are otherwise complying with this license because of animus on the part of one contributor is not really a copyleft license in spirit. It would be an untenable precedent to set that any contributor can effectively ban anyone they like from using Linux. I strongly doubt the Linux community would keep code like this even if they were technically allowed to. > Richard Stallman ... Would never countenance a situation like the one you're contemplating. He cares most about software freedom and what you're describing is basically the opposite.
- judge2020 5y ago> It seems likely to me that courts in many jurisdictions would decide that an open source bait and switch was not what their corresponding legislatures had in mind when drafting license reversion rules Whether or not this works is dependent per-country; many countries have judicial systems which do honor the intent of a law, while others (most common law incl. USA) read strictly by the letter of the law, which is why legal loopholes exist.