open source license with 24 month proprietary clause

[Gary W. Swearingen]

Terry Lambert <tlambert2 at mindspring.com> writes:

> Revocation of the Net/2 licenses by UCB, and revocation of
> the UCSD P-Code system licenses by UCSD are two examples of
> case law that contradict your "some lawyer's web site".

More likely, they're really just two examples of licensees not wanting
to pay enough to defend their rights.  Examples to be learned from.

> You can't even tell me not to walk across your property, if
> you haven't prevented me from doing it for some period of
> time.  But it's not a license that prevents you from doing
> this, it's because I've established an interest through what's
> called a "prescriptive lien via adverse use".  8-).

I'll use your approach to argument here.  Your first sentence is wrong
because I can't have prevented you if you've never tried.  Your second
sentence is wrong in its implication (that what I said was wrong)
because I never said that the license prevents me from withdrawing
permission; I said that law prevents you from withdrawing license in
a certain case, which your case has nothing to do with.

> One good thing about people trying to treat IP as real property

Of course, real property is just a term with many meanings, usually just
referencing a set of intangible legal rights which attach to something
physical, which patent and copyrights utlimately do too.

> is that if they are successful, I'll be able to use their
> software patents, and if they don't stop me immediately, I'll
> be able to claim a prescreptive lien through adverse use.

You'll be allowed to do such things when the law allows you to,
regardless of anyone's understanding of what real property is or what is
considered to be real property.  Such terms are too fuzzy for words.

> It's not.  The hold harmless is something the licensee would
> need to do anyway, if they didn't take the software.  So it's
> not like they've given anything to the licensor that they
> didn't already have.

That's the silly argument I've heard in a long time.  (Only someone as
clever as you could come up with such a thing.)  The two hold harmlesses
have very different values, as I'm sure the licensor's insurance company
would agree -- the difference in value being the consideration.