Don't put your software in the public domain

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 04:41 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> 
>> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html
> 
>  From that:
>> It might be ruled to create a global licence for unrestricted use. That
>  > licence might or might not then be adjudicated to be revocable by
>  > subsequent copyright owners (heirs, divorcing spouses, creditors).
> 
> If that's possible, then could said heirs, divorcing spouses
> and creditors also revoke supposedly permanent rights granted
> under an explicit licence? Or is putting the word "irrevocable"
> in the licence enough to prevent that?

Further thoughts on this question...

A licence is something like a contract, in that it is binding on both
parties unless mutually agreed by both parties. With something like the MIT
licence, there's no action that the licensee (the user of the software) can
do to void the contract. And since there is no expiry date, the licence
lasts forever, hence the author cannot unilaterally cancel the licence.
Even if subsequent copyright owners (heirs etc) stop distributing the
software to *new* users, existing licensees still have the right to
distribute the software.

On the other hand, the GPL can be revoked, since the licence requires the
users to do something: if you distribute software based on the GPLed code,
you must also distribute the source code under the same licence terms. If
the user fails to do so, then one of two things happen:

(1) If the GPL licence is valid, then they are in breach of the licence
terms, the licence is revoked, and they are not legally permitted to
distribute or use the software;

(2) If, as some people insist, the GPL licence is not valid, then they have
no valid licence, and are not legally permitted to distribute or use the
software.

That's why, for all the talk about the GPL never being held up in court,
*nobody* has ever challenged it in court. If they did, and failed, then
they would be in breach of copyright. If they succeeded, they would still
be in breach of copyright. Any user of GPLed software who challenged it
would be shooting themselves in the head: *either way*, win or lose, they
would be in breach of copyright law.


(Reminder: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)



-- 
Steven