Zed's new Lamson licence: yank the rug at any time.(github.com)
github.com
Zed's new Lamson licence: yank the rug at any time.
https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/blob/master/LICENSE
10 comments
A software engineer drafting up his own crazy license is on as solid footing as a lawyer drafting up his own crazy email server software.
This is yet another example of engineers' disease. Having experience in a narrow technical domain does not confer you expertise in other domains. Being a mechanical engineer does not make you qualified as an expert on climate science. Being a software engineer does not make you qualified as an expert on contracts.
This is yet another example of engineers' disease. Having experience in a narrow technical domain does not confer you expertise in other domains. Being a mechanical engineer does not make you qualified as an expert on climate science. Being a software engineer does not make you qualified as an expert on contracts.
Don't the all-caps make it binding on a fundamental, quarks-and-protons level like the GPL and copyright?
Indeed, how do you say "cruise control for cool" in Latin?
The wording in question:
5. The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone who uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason.
And his explanation from the README:
Lamson is licensed under the license in the https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/blob/master/LICENSE file. It's a variant of the BSD license that is revokeable and makes contributor's rights clear up front.
It's a phenomenal idea. I'm gonna start buying stuff in revokeable cash.
5. The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone who uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason.
And his explanation from the README:
Lamson is licensed under the license in the https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/blob/master/LICENSE file. It's a variant of the BSD license that is revokeable and makes contributor's rights clear up front.
It's a phenomenal idea. I'm gonna start buying stuff in revokeable cash.
The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone who uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason.
Legalese for "a non-open source project that no-one should put any trust in."
Legalese for "a non-open source project that no-one should put any trust in."
And now he's blocked me because he doesn't understand copyright law.
Is there a fan club? Do I get some sort of t-shirt?
Is there a fan club? Do I get some sort of t-shirt?
I don't understand copyright law, either.
In your opinion, would it be legal for you to fork Lamson at a version before the revocation clause was put in the license, then distribute the source with that license?
In your opinion, would it be legal for you to fork Lamson at a version before the revocation clause was put in the license, then distribute the source with that license?
[deleted]
Sure, depending on what the license was previously. I'm pretty sure that's happened before (LibreOffice, maybe?).
It has been GPLv3 before.
https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/commit/d259a669728a92a386f...
https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/commit/d259a669728a92a386f...
IANAL: My understanding is that even if he were to revoke the license, any copies you already made under it would remain your legal property, as they were made lawfully. It's the right to copy (naturally the author's exclusive right) the license is giving you. Revoking that right prevents you from making future copies, but would have no power to make you destroy the ones you already have.
Right?
Right?
Nope. If he revokes, you lose the licence, and can't use lamson any more. It's how the GPL works, too.
See this tweet: http://twitter.com/zedshaw/status/223966065091284992
See this tweet: http://twitter.com/zedshaw/status/223966065091284992
[deleted](1)
In the US, 17 USC 117 disagrees.
No it doesn't. 17 USC 117 refers to software that you already have a licence for, and covers exemptions to copyright. ie. you're allowed to make a backup of software, you're allowed to transfer your licence to someone else and you're allowed to run it if you only use it to fix .
Note the phrasing (from http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html) of these bits:
...all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
...that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program...
Note the phrasing (from http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html) of these bits:
...all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
...that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program...
> 17 USC 117 refers to software that you already have a licence for
No, it refers to software that you own a copy of. Termination of a copyright license does not terminate your ownership of copies that you already have, if they were made lawfully and distributed to you lawfully.
A good quick and dirty test to see if you need a copyright license in order to legally do something is to ask yourself what the copyright owner would allege in his pleadings if he were to sue you.
No, it refers to software that you own a copy of. Termination of a copyright license does not terminate your ownership of copies that you already have, if they were made lawfully and distributed to you lawfully.
A good quick and dirty test to see if you need a copyright license in order to legally do something is to ask yourself what the copyright owner would allege in his pleadings if he were to sue you.
Hmm, maybe you're right, but most software licences that I can lay hands on from a quick Google search (other than the GPL) explicitly mention 'use' and termination. For example, the BSD licence:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms,
with or without modification, are permitted provided
that the following conditions are met:
Just curious, has that aspect of the GPL ever successfully been held up in court?
Yep, since it's essentially just copyright law with no fancy licence involved: I made X, you're using it without permission.
That's not copyright law. Copyright law governs the right to make copies and distribute copies. Use of a copy you legally acquired can only possibly be restricted by a license agreement; contract law.
No, copyright law refers to the rights of the creator of an original work. Nothing to do with copying, per se.
"Nothing to do with copying"?! If you're going to say such ridiculous things, please stop making legal commentary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta...
Copyright grants 5 exclusive rights to the authors of a work. Two of them are creating copies and distributing copies. Two of the others don't really apply to executing software (public display and performance of audiovisual works), and the last is the creation of derivative works.
What the owners of some copies of code do with them is not something the author gains any control of. That can only be restricted by the license, which as it says, is governed by applicable contract law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta...
Copyright grants 5 exclusive rights to the authors of a work. Two of them are creating copies and distributing copies. Two of the others don't really apply to executing software (public display and performance of audiovisual works), and the last is the creation of derivative works.
What the owners of some copies of code do with them is not something the author gains any control of. That can only be restricted by the license, which as it says, is governed by applicable contract law.
Copyright extends to other rights too, not just copying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright For instance, your link makes no mention of moral rights.
Also, per se is an important qualifier in that sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28P%29#p...
In the case of software licenses such as the GPL, it's a weird amalgalm of the two. The only thing which gives you the right to make a copy of the software and use it is the license. If the license becomes invalid for whatever reason (eg. revoked by Zed) then you have an illegal copy of the software, and are pursued under copyright law, not contract law.
Also, per se is an important qualifier in that sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28P%29#p...
In the case of software licenses such as the GPL, it's a weird amalgalm of the two. The only thing which gives you the right to make a copy of the software and use it is the license. If the license becomes invalid for whatever reason (eg. revoked by Zed) then you have an illegal copy of the software, and are pursued under copyright law, not contract law.
Your analysis here is entirely wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Well how would you explain moral rights then? They're certainly nothing to do with copying.
Your original point (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4242918) is certainly wrong - Zed can revoke the licence at any time, and you have to stop using the software.
Your original point (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4242918) is certainly wrong - Zed can revoke the licence at any time, and you have to stop using the software.
Change the license to officially BSD.
https://github.com/medecau/lamson/commit/e78520b857384462b9e...
This is the last change before the introduction of the new clauses.
This is the last change before the introduction of the new clauses.
So, does that mean anything up to commit e78520b857384462b9eecdedfc0f8c2e57cdd00a is under the standard BSD license then?
Whether or not it means anything depends upon which judge/jury might be deciding it, but if you forked at that commit and didn't use any of his code post that change you'd have a pretty good case that the modified terms don't apply to you since he publicly 'released' that version under the traditional BSD license (or optionally GPLv3).
Careful, though. If the original license is seen by the court as a bare copyright license, rather than as a contract, then the copyright holder may be able to revoke that license. If that were the case, people with copies distributed before the revocation would no longer be able to make and distribute copies or derivative works.
This is a thorny and confusing area, and we are not going to know for sure until we have a few actual cases litigated.
This is a thorny and confusing area, and we are not going to know for sure until we have a few actual cases litigated.
Actually this "license" is completely nonsensical and in stark contradiction to the Github terms of service.
"Contributors agree that any contributions are owned by the copyright holder and that contributors have absolutely no rights to their contributions."
US Copyright law states that contributors ALWAYS have the copyright to their own work unless they explicitly transfer to another party.
"Contributors agree that any contributions are owned by the copyright holder and that contributors have absolutely no rights to their contributions."
US Copyright law states that contributors ALWAYS have the copyright to their own work unless they explicitly transfer to another party.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
New version of the license: "Neither the name of Zed A. Shaw may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
We could very well call this whole incident "Learn You Have Borderline Personality Disorder The Hard Way, By Being Laughed Out Of Court." BSD, meet BPD.