
Zed's new Lamson licence: yank the rug at any time. - anthonyb
https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/blob/master/LICENSE
======
caseydurfee
Original version of the license: "Lamson is licensed BSD or GPLv3, whichever
you want. This basically means you shitheads who like using software without
giving credit can go on being leeches on the world and tell everyone that
you're fucking brilliant and invented all the gear running your shitty little
company when really you just borrowed shit from real creators like me."

New version of the license: "Neither the name of Zed A. Shaw may be used to
endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior
written permission."

We could very well call this whole incident "Learn You Have Borderline
Personality Disorder The Hard Way, By Being Laughed Out Of Court." BSD, meet
BPD.

------
caseydurfee
A software engineer drafting up his own crazy license is on as solid footing
as a lawyer drafting up his own crazy email server software.

This is yet another example of engineers' disease. Having experience in a
narrow technical domain does not confer you expertise in other domains. Being
a mechanical engineer does not make you qualified as an expert on climate
science. Being a software engineer does not make you qualified as an expert on
contracts.

~~~
gue5t
Don't the all-caps make it binding on a fundamental, quarks-and-protons level
like the GPL and copyright?

~~~
caseydurfee
Indeed, how do you say "cruise control for cool" in Latin?

------
chbrown
The wording in question:

5\. The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone
who uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason.

And his explanation from the README:

Lamson is licensed under the license in the
<https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/blob/master/LICENSE> file. It's a variant
of the BSD license that is revokeable and makes contributor's rights clear up
front.

It's a phenomenal idea. I'm gonna start buying stuff in revokeable cash.

------
my_throwaway
_The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone who
uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason._

Legalese for "a non-open source project that no-one should put any trust in."

------
anthonyb
And now he's blocked me because he doesn't understand copyright law.

Is there a fan club? Do I get some sort of t-shirt?

~~~
jbapple
I don't understand copyright law, either.

In your opinion, would it be legal for you to fork Lamson at a version before
the revocation clause was put in the license, then distribute the source with
that license?

~~~
anthonyb
Sure, depending on what the license was previously. I'm pretty sure that's
happened before (LibreOffice, maybe?).

------
dangrossman
IANAL: My understanding is that even if he were to revoke the license, any
copies you already made under it would remain your legal property, as they
were made lawfully. It's the right to copy (naturally the author's exclusive
right) the license is giving you. Revoking that right prevents you from making
future copies, but would have no power to make you destroy the ones you
already have.

Right?

~~~
anthonyb
Nope. If he revokes, you lose the licence, and can't use lamson any more. It's
how the GPL works, too.

See this tweet: <http://twitter.com/zedshaw/status/223966065091284992>

~~~
tzs
In the US, 17 USC 117 disagrees.

~~~
anthonyb
No it doesn't. 17 USC 117 refers to software that you already have a licence
for, and covers exemptions to copyright. ie. you're allowed to make a backup
of software, you're allowed to transfer your licence to someone else and
you're allowed to run it if you only use it to fix .

Note the phrasing (from <http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html>) of
these bits:

 _...all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
of the computer program should cease to be rightful._

 _...that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program..._

~~~
tzs
> 17 USC 117 refers to software that you already have a licence for

No, it refers to software that you own a copy of. Termination of a copyright
license does not terminate your ownership of copies that you already have, if
they were made lawfully and distributed to you lawfully.

A good quick and dirty test to see if you need a copyright license in order to
legally do something is to ask yourself what the copyright owner would allege
in his pleadings if he were to sue you.

~~~
anthonyb
Hmm, maybe you're right, but most software licences that I can lay hands on
from a quick Google search (other than the GPL) explicitly mention 'use' and
termination. For example, the BSD licence:

    
    
      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, 
      with or without modification, are permitted provided 
      that the following conditions are met:
    

If what you were saying is true though, it would mean that the BSD licence is
essentially unenforceable, since once I have a copy, it can't be taken away.

------
medecau
Change the license to officially BSD.
[https://github.com/medecau/lamson/commit/e78520b857384462b9e...](https://github.com/medecau/lamson/commit/e78520b857384462b9eecdedfc0f8c2e57cdd00a)

This is the last change before the introduction of the new clauses.

------
lsaferite
So, does that mean anything up to commit
e78520b857384462b9eecdedfc0f8c2e57cdd00a is under the standard BSD license
then?

~~~
georgemcbay
Whether or not it means anything depends upon which judge/jury might be
deciding it, but if you forked at that commit and didn't use any of his code
post that change you'd have a pretty good case that the modified terms don't
apply to you since he publicly 'released' that version under the traditional
BSD license (or optionally GPLv3).

~~~
tzs
Careful, though. If the original license is seen by the court as a bare
copyright license, rather than as a contract, then the copyright holder may be
able to revoke that license. If that were the case, people with copies
distributed before the revocation would no longer be able to make and
distribute copies or derivative works.

This is a thorny and confusing area, and we are not going to know for sure
until we have a few actual cases litigated.

------
taligent
Actually this "license" is completely nonsensical and in stark contradiction
to the Github terms of service.

"Contributors agree that any contributions are owned by the copyright holder
and that contributors have absolutely no rights to their contributions."

US Copyright law states that contributors ALWAYS have the copyright to their
own work unless they explicitly transfer to another party.

