Discussion:
What is the name of your state? Arizona
Here is the scenario. Someone creates software and copyrights it, but then distributes it in a public internet forum for free as shareware. Text inside the copyright states explicitly that the software is shareable by those who download it (basically, if you download it, you can distribute it freely to others if you wish). During the course of many years, the software goes through numerous revisions, and remains free and with unrestricted non-commercial distribution language in the copyright. Then when the developer makes a specific revision, he decides to start charging for said software and controls its future distribution. Is it possible for the developer to "recall" or restrict the non-commercial sharing of previous versions? Or does the restriction on non-commercial distribution take effect with the latest release version only? Mind you that this is not a scenario where the developer maintained any form of "customer list" and is able to contact all customers to inform them of the changes to their policy. Basically, the older releases of the software has "scattered in the wind" and the developer has no way of knowing who actually has possession of his product. There is no way of tracking exactly who downloaded all the previous free versions.
Basically after years of giving the thing away for free, with language that explicitly permits such sharing, the guy is now trying to restrict the non-commercial sharing of the previous releases in an attempt to coerce people into buying the current release.
Can the guy legally "shut down" the sharing of older versions which were released into the public domain for free with explicit language that allowed non-commercial distribution by anyone?
I say he can restrict distribution and charge to his hearts content for the current version and all versions going forward, but he cannot recall the versions previously given away for free, nor can he restrict others from continuing to share the older shareable releases.
Any thoughts?What is the name of your state?
Answer:
Can the guy legally "shut down" the sharing of older versions which were released into the public domain for free with explicit language that allowed non-commercial distribution by anyone? Just an FYI -- the software was not released into the public domain -- it was released with a specific license that allowed for unlimited reproduction and distribution. If the work had actually been released to the public domain, there would be no license -- it would be free to use by anyone.
I say he can restrict distribution and charge to his hearts content for the current version and all versions going forward, but he cannot recall the versions previously given away for free, nor can he restrict others from continuing to share the older shareable releases. Unless the language of the license says something like "for all time" or "can never be changed," there doesn't appear to be any reason why he can't revoke the distribution license. Now, anyone who legally acquired the software while it was licensed for free distibution can continue to use the software, but barring contractual language to the contrary, there isn't any reason why the copyright owner couldn't decide to change the license terms and restrict further distribution. The license isn't a physical or otherwise immutable part of the software itself -- there is no reason why the copyright holder is limited to changing the license only on a going forward basis.
Answer:
I guess I don't follow how those people who downloaded an earlier version from various FTP sites not owned or operated by the software creator, and who plainly see the text that states its openly sharable, would ever know that as of such-n-such date, the previously shareable version of the software is no longer shareable and that for anyone sharing the older version marked "shareable" after that point in time would be illegal to do so. There is no way the creator could contact everybody who ever downloaded the thing to advise them of the change in terms.
If the creator wanted to change the terms which adds distribution restrictions to previous released versions, is he not obligated to inform all who acquired the previous (sharable) version and inform them that the terms of use included in the original copyright text associated with the earlier version of the product they have is no longer current or accurate? If so, how would that be accomplished when the person doesnt know where EVERY shareable copy went?? If not, then how would a user ever know that continuing to share it after a specific date is out of compliance with whatever the new terms are?
If I download freeware, is it my obligation to keep checking in with the creator to make sure the terms of the initial license are still in force? That sounds utterly silly. Or is it the creators responsibility to make ALL users aware of any changes in his terms whenever he decides to make changes?
FYI, here is the actual text in the copyright. My clarifications are in the []
"The authors accept no responsibility for any loss or damage caused by using this software. All responsibility for its use and the consequences of using this software rest solely with the User. This software is free. That means it's not allowed to be included in any payware package. In other words, this program is to be freely shared by all simulation community users without having to pay any fee."
"However it would be prudent if you put the program up on your [download] site [for the purpose of sharing our work among other users in the community], to send an e-mail to Us saying where it is."
And on a splashscreen when you start up the application, it says
'This program is freeware. Don't make any profit from it"
Answer:
You are incorrect. The author is not resonsible for contacting everybody and making sure they understand the new rules. Whoever is about to possibly commit infringement must find out whether or not they are allowed to copy/distribute BEFORE they actually do so.
Answer:
Now that goes against common sense.
If one person creates something with license terms that state sharing by others is allowed, and proceeds to share it with 5,000,000 people, why should it be the responsibility of 5,000,000 people to check in with the creator to see if he/she has changed his mind?
The creator should have more responsibility here, seeing as it was his creation, his decision to release initially without restrictions and it was his decision to come along later and change the terms. Why do 5,000,000 people who plainly see the text that says "sharing this is okay" need to phone home to the creator to validate? Why isnt it the other way around?
If a bank issues credit cards to 200 million people under a set of terms, it is not the responsibility of 200 million people to phone the bank and make sure the original terms are still in place or ask for updates. Its the responsibility of the bank to mail 200 million updated terms notifications regarding their "product" that they offer to all their cardholders. Why is it not the responsibility of the software creator to notify 5,000,000 users that the terms regarding his "product" are now different?
Answer:
Now that goes against common sense.
If one person creates something with license terms that state sharing by others is allowed, and proceeds to share it with 5,000,000 people, why should it be the responsibility of 5,000,000 people to check in with the creator to see if he/she has changed his mind?
The creator should have more responsibility here, seeing as it was his creation, his decision to release initially without restrictions and it was his decision to come along later and change the terms. Why do 5,000,000 people who plainly see the text that says "sharing this is okay" need to phone home to the creator to validate? Why isnt it the other way around? It kind of works both ways. If the user does not check to see if the license is still valid before continuing to share the license, then the user may be liable for copyright infringement. On the other hand, if the creator does nothing to notify users of the change in license terms, even if he did go out and try to sue all of the copyright infringers, his recovery would likely be limited, at most to less than $500 per user, because the users, based on the license language, would likely be able to argue that they were "innocent infringers" under statute.
Besides, the software was given away. Why do think that just because you've been getting something for free means that you are now entitled to get it for free? Now, if you had actually paid for the license in some way, then yeah, I would agree that most likely he can't change freely change the licensing terms (absent language in the license to the contrary), but if you are getting it for free, you are not in a position legally or morally to insist that you be able to continue to use and distribute his work as you see fit.
I guess the final tally is that yeah, legally, the guy can change the license, and make further distribution of the work illegal without permission. Practically, however, he really has no way to enforce the licensing changes, and all of the individual users probably have little to fear.
More likely, he is interested in stopping people who include his shareware program on a disk with many other freeware and shareware programs, the type people sell on eBay, or the type that some software companies include with their own products (I don't know if they still do that, they used to). It might actually be doable to enforce the new license against a few "bundlers" who are including the former shareware in their bundles. But individuals sharing probably have little to fear in the way of liablity.
Answer:
Thanks for the replies, everyone.
Its not really a case of a sense of entitlement, but my concerns are more along the grounds that a creator needs to have greater responsibility for his/her actions in things. Releasing a product to the public should have a responsibility for "getting it right" with regards to allowed usage.
The published terms should be binding FOR BOTH SIDES for that specific release, until the creator clearly communicates any changes to the users, either in the form of revisions to the terms of the current release or (for his own expediency) he bundles the next release with new terms. If he cannot communicate with everyone because he didnt bother to keep track of who the users were, then he should be SOL and stuck with the initial terms for that release for failing at his responsibility of "getting it right" in the first place. If he wants the ability to change the terms, then it should be his responsibility to track where his copies go. It is utterly bizarre to not put the burden onto the creator, and instead put the burden of exploration and discovery onto the users or consumers of the product especially when the initial terms invite the public to share at will.
Answer:
How can the creator keep track of a copy saved to a disk, and the disk shared with 50 friends, some of whom might not even have internet capabilities?