Section 3.1 grants two permissions, both of which run directly counter to the IP laws of any jurisdiction I'm aware of. IANAL, but I can't see this standing up to any court challenge, anywhere in the world or any lawyer suggesting that their client rely on it.
3.1 has awkward wording. I had to read it twice to understand it. It's saying *with respect the licensed work*, you are given permission to do whatever you want, to do anything that is protected by copyright on the work.
It would probably be better written as:
-- Licensor grants You the world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive permission to: Copy the work Distribute copies Distribute derived works Any other action protected by copyright on the work
The above permissions include a patent license under any patent controlled by the Licensor, to the extent such patent license applies to the Work as distributed by the Licensor. --
I don't see a problem with 3.1 legally. It's just not written as clearly as it could be.
Section 4.1.1 seems very broad. Any permission would seem to include modification. So if you make a modification and as long as that modification exists, you must provide access, plus one year. If you remove your modification, it must still exist for at least one additional year so you can never unmodify or cease distribution.
4.4 says this only applies to people you distribute the work to.
4.2 says source can be provided by a third party.
Taken together, they say: For one year after you stop distributing it to your customers, one of two things must be available: A) Have source code available to customers (on your web or ftp site) B) The source code exists publicly, such as on GitHub
The problem I see is that distributing the source itself triggers 4.1, so you have to make the source code available
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's
got to be a better way.
-- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
Unenforceable (Score:4, Interesting)
"with respect to the work" (Score:4, Insightful)
3.1 has awkward wording. I had to read it twice to understand it. It's saying *with respect the licensed work*, you are given permission to do whatever you want, to do anything that is protected by copyright on the work.
It would probably be better written as:
--
Licensor grants You the world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive permission to:
Copy the work
Distribute copies
Distribute derived works
Any other action protected by copyright on the work
The above permissions include a patent license under any patent controlled by the Licensor, to the extent such patent license applies to the Work as distributed by the Licensor.
--
I don't see a problem with 3.1 legally. It's just not written as clearly as it could be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unenforceable (Score:2)
Bad wording again - it refers to 4.4 (Score:3)
The first phrase in 4.1 refers to 4.4.
4.4 says this only applies to people you distribute the work to.
4.2 says source can be provided by a third party.
Taken together, they say:
For one year after you stop distributing it to your customers, one of two things must be available:
A) Have source code available to customers (on your web or ftp site)
B) The source code exists publicly, such as on GitHub
The problem I see is that distributing the source itself triggers 4.1, so you have to make the source code available