It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Dave Crossland said:Second, as you well know, the ofl requires downstream distribution to be under the ofl "and only this license." Or words to that effect. So while your observation is true that someone who is a copyright holder for 100% of the work can distribute under several licenses, it's only true in a narrow sense with that qualifier; when the work has a second copyright holder, it seems to me that they are bound to only distribute under ofl, or only under the other license, because the ofl forbids distribution under non-ofl licenses. And this your proposed dual license scheme fails at the first redistribution. Its OFL or bust
Adam Twardoch said:
...This has been done countless times. If a group of authors creates a piece of software and releases it under the GPL3, and accepts contributions from more people, all under the GPL3, at any point in time, the group can convert the GPL3-licensed product to another license (even closed-source), provided that they obtain permissions from all (exactly all) authors and contributors (i.e. the copyright holders).
Adam Twardoch said:They cannot revoke a license that has been granted “perpetually and irrevocably” (which the OFL doesn’t do, BTW), but they can always release their work under a different license.
In an open-source license such as the OFL, the licensee is “any person”, but this obviously does not include the copyright holder.
Several companies have parodied this belief that users do not read the end-user-license agreements by adding unusual clauses, knowing that few users will ever read them. As an April Fool's Day joke, Gamestation added a clause stating that users who placed an order on April 1, 2010 agreed to irrevocably give their soul to the company, which 7,500 users agreed to. Although there was a checkbox to exempt out of the "immortal soul" clause, few users checked it and thus Gamestation concluded that 88% of their users did not read the agreement.[Source]
IP licensing form[s] sub-branches of law born out of the interplay of general laws of contract and specific principles and statutory laws relating to these respective assets.[Source]