To my understanding (IANAL), you cannot retroactively relicense works. Well, you can, but the license originally applied to the work will continue to apply to the work as well, at the end-users'...
To my understanding (IANAL), you cannot retroactively relicense works. Well, you can, but the license originally applied to the work will continue to apply to the work as well, at the end-users' choice. This is commonly seen in open-source software, where a piece of software might be licensed under two or more licenses, targeting different uses of the software (for example, commercial or personal.)
If I changed the license of one of my open-source projects to a far more restrictive license (assuming, of course, that I'd gotten the permission of all the current contributors to change the license), then it would be completely legal for a third party to fork the latest version of my software that was licensed under the old license, then continue on development on their own fork. It's not really feasible to revoke access to everybody using the existing work.
Right, the article includes a little section about this: So it's definitely weird, and with photos you avoid some of the similar issues that you see with code (like you mentioned, needing to get...
Right, the article includes a little section about this:
Bergmayer also noted that while anyone that had previously used SpaceX images under CC0 should still be free to do so, that could also cause practical problems down the line.
“If I get an image from you and you have it under CC0, presumably it is under CC0 for me, too. Then what happens if SpaceX objects to a use that is prohibited under their current license, but not CC0?” he asked. “It’s a strange evidentiary problem, basically.”
So it's definitely weird, and with photos you avoid some of the similar issues that you see with code (like you mentioned, needing to get consent from all the contributors), but I guess they can change the license going forward?
Even when a code base changes licenses, it only applies to new releases and versions, correct? Therefore since photos don't have versions, the photos should still be able to be used with the least...
Even when a code base changes licenses, it only applies to new releases and versions, correct? Therefore since photos don't have versions, the photos should still be able to be used with the least restrictive license that they had, correct? I imagine if spacex did some editing to the photos, they could release the edits with a more restrictive license, but they can't put a more restrictive license on the exact same work. It seems like this isn't going to last for more than a few seconds against any legal arguments.
To my understanding (IANAL), you cannot retroactively relicense works. Well, you can, but the license originally applied to the work will continue to apply to the work as well, at the end-users' choice. This is commonly seen in open-source software, where a piece of software might be licensed under two or more licenses, targeting different uses of the software (for example, commercial or personal.)
If I changed the license of one of my open-source projects to a far more restrictive license (assuming, of course, that I'd gotten the permission of all the current contributors to change the license), then it would be completely legal for a third party to fork the latest version of my software that was licensed under the old license, then continue on development on their own fork. It's not really feasible to revoke access to everybody using the existing work.
I'd love to be corrected if I'm mistaken!
Right, the article includes a little section about this:
So it's definitely weird, and with photos you avoid some of the similar issues that you see with code (like you mentioned, needing to get consent from all the contributors), but I guess they can change the license going forward?
I'm reminded of how software projects include a full copy of their license. Is the license typically included in metadata on photos?
Even when a code base changes licenses, it only applies to new releases and versions, correct? Therefore since photos don't have versions, the photos should still be able to be used with the least restrictive license that they had, correct? I imagine if spacex did some editing to the photos, they could release the edits with a more restrictive license, but they can't put a more restrictive license on the exact same work. It seems like this isn't going to last for more than a few seconds against any legal arguments.
Photos may very well have versions if the author edits them. The versions might not be tracked very well, though.