4 ms·

Nope, from 17 U.S.C. §203: "(a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a

Nope, from 17 U.S.C. §203: "(a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright[...] is subject to termination under the following conditions [...]" - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203

nitrogen 13y ago
203b1, allowing derivative works to continue to be used after the termination, seems to reduce the impact this would have on GPLed software. Has anyone written about the possible interactions with copyright termination of permissive and copyleft licenses?
- antiterra 13y ago
  I remember PJ mentioned it, very dismissively, in a Groklaw post[1] and its comments in 2008. I made the same suggestion[2] you did about 203(b)(1), but another anonymous commenter pointed out that further works based on the source might be problematic. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2006062204552163 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060622045521... [2] http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2006062204552163&title=The%20Revocable%20GPL%20in%20the%20U.S.&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=667899#c668374 http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060622...
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    It sounds like an area of copyright law that is in desperate need of clarification from the legislature before the courts become involved, considering that modern copyrighted works are almost always "licensed" as a matter of usage, not just as part of a distribution and publishing agreement. Or maybe that was the intent of the software vendors all along -- revoke all licenses after 35 years so we have no choice but to upgrade ;-).

4 ms·

Nope, from 17 U.S.C. §203: "(a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a

by antiterra 13y ago

nitrogen 13y ago
203b1, allowing derivative works to continue to be used after the termination, seems to reduce the impact this would have on GPLed software. Has anyone written about the possible interactions with copyright termination of permissive and copyleft licenses?
- antiterra 13y ago
  I remember PJ mentioned it, very dismissively, in a Groklaw post[1] and its comments in 2008. I made the same suggestion[2] you did about 203(b)(1), but another anonymous commenter pointed out that further works based on the source might be problematic. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2006062204552163 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060622045521... [2] http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2006062204552163&title=The%20Revocable%20GPL%20in%20the%20U.S.&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=667899#c668374 http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060622...
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    It sounds like an area of copyright law that is in desperate need of clarification from the legislature before the courts become involved, considering that modern copyrighted works are almost always "licensed" as a matter of usage, not just as part of a distribution and publishing agreement. Or maybe that was the intent of the software vendors all along -- revoke all licenses after 35 years so we have no choice but to upgrade ;-).