[copyleft-next] Limited-term copyleft

"Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)" copyleft-next at clacke.user.lysator.liu.se
Thu Feb 14 04:19:28 UTC 2013


On 2013-02-14 11:40, 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?

It is an excellent idea! I'd like to think this idea has been brewing in 
your mind since I mentioned it about a year ago. :-)

I had the idea when I saw @zooko's license, which is precisely the 
opposite -- permissive for two years (IIRC), then strengthening to copyleft.

 > 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).

Yes. I view the "delayed permissive" function as an alternative way of 
handling the license upgrade issue, one that removes any "or later" or 
"decision proxy organization" complexities.

 > 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.

I will look this up.

 > If anyone thinks it's a good idea, what would be a good copyleft
 > duration? 15, 20, 25 years?

15 years is a very long time. For example, bringing Linux 2.2 up to 
shape to be commercially usable today would require a massive amount of 
work. It's almost irrelevant for practical purposes what license Linux 
2.2 is under.

If this is meant to have any practical effect, I would suggest 10 years 
or even 5 years.

But couldn't this be up to the project licensing the software? Of 
course, to make this useful in any way, the project would need to have a 
clear policy that all incoming contributions would be under the same 
delayed-permissive terms, so that one could look at a consistent 
X-year-old tree and know that it was now permissively licensed.

 > Please do not hesitate to shoot this down.

Leaving that to somebody else. I am enthusiastic that this has been 
brought up.


For me, this kind of arrangement would be the main use of a 
"permissive-next" license.

-- 
    /c


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list