Member Discussions

Are licences to run codebases retro-active? I'll give an example. If player ABC starts a mud off the Diku codebase, and it's somehow given to an individual or the public(With or without his consent), if he *then* writes a licence and publicly distributes his (derivative)codebase, does that licence act retro-actively to the code that was "released"(Be it that the codebase was stolen, or given.)? Example(The only one which I'm somewhat familiar with, and I mean no disrespect by using it as an example) would be KaVir's Godwars code which was "given" to Joker without a licence(If it was given without a licence, if it wasn't, then let's be hypothetical about the scenario :). If KaVir then after giving it to him decides to add a licence to his codebase, does Joker have to follow it, even if his version was obtained pre-licencing? This question is generally directed at licencing, and I don't in any way mean it to be specific to Godwars, I just happened to remember that off hand :)

If the codebase was given without the original creator's consent, then the user has no right to use it. Period. In this situation, like KaVir did with GW, you can create a license that applies retroactively. Without that license, they have no right to use it.

Now, if a license was given with the codebase, you actually have to have a clause in there to change the license if memory serves. However, it may be possible to terminate the license with the consent of all copyright holders associated with it, then re-release under a new license - check IMC for examples. This is kinda iffy...it's best just to put the clause in the license overall.

"Given" has special meaning regarding copyrights. Did he transfer rights to the other person in writing, or did he "give" that person a copy?

I can write a book and give someone a copy, but that does not remove my exclusive rights to the material. It doesn't matter if I mark it with a copyright or not. I still have complete ownership of the content until my death and 70 years afterwards if I read the copyirght law correctly.

> If the codebase was given without the original creator's
> consent, then the user has no right to use it. Period. In
> this situation, like KaVir did with GW, you can create a
> license that applies retroactively. Without that license,
> they have no right to use it.

Right. In the case of Joker, I gave him a copy of the GW code because he wanted to see how it worked, but I did so under the condition that he didn't use it to create or run his own mud. When I eventually agreed to let people run GW muds after the code had been leaked out, I created a licence to legally let them do what they were already doing.

> Now, if a license was given with the codebase, you actually
> have to have a clause in there to change the license if
> memory serves.

Yes, however there's nothing stopping you from creating alternative licences and allowing people to choose which to use (some companies actually do to allow cheaper or free non-commercial versions of their software, for example). In the case of Joker, he could still use either licence - but as only the latter actually gave him permission to create, run and distribute his derivative, it wasn't really much of a choice.

In later releases of GW I provided alternative licences. In the case of GW Deluxe, the licence applies to a new derivative, and thus you are forced to accept the updated licence - but in rereleases of the older code it's also possible to just use one of the older licences, if you have one.

> However, it may be possible to terminate the license with
> the consent of all copyright holders associated with it,
> then re-release under a new license - check IMC for
> examples. This is kinda iffy...it's best just to put the
> clause in the license overall.

I'm actually pretty sure you can't do that, unless you place a clause in the licence stating that you may do so, or it's a new version of the code, or unless your only changes are to remove clauses (for example you could say "You no longer have to give me credit in the login sequence", but not "You must now distribute your source code if you also distribute your binaries").

IMC changed their licence, but you could still use the old one (for the associated older version of the code) if you wished to.

> I'm actually pretty sure you can't do that, unless you place a clause in the licence stating that you may do so, or it's a new version of the code, or unless your only changes are to remove clauses (for example you could say "You no longer have to give me credit in the login sequence", but not "You must now distribute your source code if you also distribute your binaries").

Or to revoke the license, in theory. That is a real grey area, however ;).