Also, I think they want people just to click the licence through, without reading it.
But let's just wait and see what the US consumer organizations do about this. They sell just to the US (and of course you can't take your movies with you if you travel outside US), and I want to see what the people in US do before they'll sell them here in Finland.
"Here's the rub: because the whole thing is based on licensing and contracts, <i>they can change the rights in any way they want in any way they please</i>. It's not a sale, remember?"
A slight tangent -- isn't this also sort-of true for open-source software and Creative Commons work (like lots of photos on Flickr)? Can the licensor at a later date turn round and change the licence? And if so, does that mean that any software or art containing it may suddenly be liable for X thousand units multiplied by a licence fee?
I've heard of companies preferring to pay to licence software rather than use free open source at all, to get some protection in case that free open source software suddenly requires a paid-for licence -- does that make any sense?
Well... To put a long story short: no. A later version of the software might change licenses, but a particular version, once released, at that point of time, will keep the license.
For Flickr photos, you can change the license. But that applies from that point onwards. No Open Source License contains a sentence which says that it can be retroactively changed, because that would be a fundamental violation of freedoms. Some non-OSI approved licenses might do this, and GPL says that you can choose to apply a later version of the GPL if you want to, but that's the licensee's choice.
Sorry, the explanation is a bit confusing. But no, I don't think it's possible.
Back to entry
|"Main_comments_170906_2" last changed on 21-Sep-2006 23:47:06 EEST by JanneJalkanen.|