G+_Joseph Cappellino Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Just putting this out there to any #Rainmeter skin devs: If someone initially releases code under CC Share Alike, but then changes his mind and changes to No Derivative works, but his source is still Share Alike, is there still a valid defense for No Derivative works if he didn't update his source to reflect that? Asking cause I noticed a license mismatch with a popular Rainmeter skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Dave Trautman Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Any person has the right to reclaim their stuff from CC at any time. They have no right to retroactively sue people who used it before they reclaimed it. But they can change the conditions and restrict it with no derivatives. This can also go the other way. A restricted license can be converted to CC by the original author at any time. The previous restrictions cannot be held against future users by other adopters. Their rights only extend to the derivations they distributed under the restricted licensing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jack Zhang Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Right, so in short, mismatching licenses is no excuse if the author wants to actively police their code. It's a shame. Some really good code existed in this particular Rainmeter skin which no one can now use, so this means anyone using a Google Finance URL through WebParser can be sued by this one guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Dave Trautman Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 From this day forward I would assume. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jack Zhang Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 That's unbelievable. This is a problem with changing licenses on a whim. This guy now has the power to go after anyone using Google Finance through WebParser.dll in Rainmeter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Dave Trautman Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 I don't think that's how it's going to work. His license can only be applied to the code he registered. How that code interacts with other people's code has no bearing on it. DLLs are shared libraries. Just because they connect to other functions does not mean they have the nexus of control moved to them. Google has a mix of open and closed code. It's pretty clear when developers go looking which is which. I can't think of what advantage this small developer would have when it came to pursuing people using his new code license. He's better off to collect for licensing than he is spending it in court. He would only pursue (I am assuming) should someone else take his new licensed code and put it into other products which are licensed. If other people making open source code decide they need his code then they license it. I also don't think the "market" for his code is all that big. If those who use it now decide to use someone else's code from here forward he won't get much in the way of license fees. But it's a calculation every developer makes in the open source community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts