Subject: Re: Time Out License (was: "Not yet"?)
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:21:36 -0700

Another term suggested is Delayed Public License (DPL).

Crispin Cowan wrote:
> 
> DJ Delorie wrote:

> > Would it work to say in your copyright terms "this program and all
> > derivatives will be relicensed under the GPL as of mm/dd/yyyy"?
> > People could redistribute the binaries, but would be legally obliged
> > to escrow those sources until that date, and send them to all their
> > recipients then.
> 
> This idea was proposed in another forum by Brian Witten (a program
> manager at DARPA) under the name "Time Out License".   I've bcc'd him so
> that he can particpate here if he so desires. The motivation was
> precisely as you describe:

> The principle sticking point was "what about upgrades?"  I.e. if FooBar
> 1.0 is TimeOut licensed to go GPL on May 1, 2000, and then FooBar 1.2
> comes out from Foo Corp., do the revisions also GPL on the original time
> out date?  Or does the company get to reset the clock when they release
> new code?

Derived work, but also a work in its own right.  Cf. copyright for new
editions of an existing work in text.  The original work would go free
on D-Day, but the original+mods would not be free until D-Day(i).

> Naturally, independent authors who had contributed code to FooBar 1.0
> that were incorporated into FooBar 1.2 might have something to say about
> this.  

There would almost certainly have to be an assignment of rights or an
agreement of terms for a TOL or DPL to work.


-- 
Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com)
    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

SAS for Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html
Mailing List:  body "subscribe sas-linux"
mailto:majordomo@Cranfield.ac.uk