[copyleft-next] Limited-term copyleft

Stephen Michael Kellat skellat at fastmail.net
Thu Feb 14 03:53:49 UTC 2013


On 02/13/2013 10:40 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Does anyone think the idea of a limited-term copyleft -- particularly
> given that copyleft-next is a software-oriented license -- is a
> good/bad idea?
>
> We're now a few years from the point where there could be 30-year-old
> code under GPL-like licenses. I have found from $DAYJOB experience
> that one occasionally has to deal with legal issues concerning
> *really* old code (in a situation I dealt with today, from 1979;
> admittedly that's unusual).
>
> The idea would be to have the copyleft terms disappear after some
> limited period far short of the statutory copyright term. 
>
> This is of course conceptually similar to the Creative Commons
> 'Founder's Copyright' idea and is related to general criticisms of
> present-day copyright term duration. 
>
> If anyone thinks it's a good idea, what would be a good copyleft
> duration? 15, 20, 25 years? 
>
> Please do not hesitate to shoot this down.
>
> - RF
>
> _______________________________________________
> copyleft-next mailing list
> copyleft-next at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next

Perhaps you might explain further the situation with the code you
encountered today?  I would like to see some further background on this
edge case and your reasoning before even considering a shoot-down.  Some
of our kernel hacking compatriots can tell us what the lifespan of a
piece of code **that is in active use** may be these days, I suppose.

Stephen Michael Kellat




More information about the copyleft-next mailing list