What to do about free packages ported to 5.7?
Permalink
Hi all,
I recently took a free package from the marketplace and updated it for 5.7 (as I needed it on a project). I then contacted the original developer, offering the code if they wanted to update their listing to include the new version.
I haven't received a response, so that leaves me wondering - what do we do about some of the free useful 5.6 add-ons, especially the simpler ones?
Do I just package it up myself, put it on the marketplace and give a polite nod to the original 5.6 developer? Strictly speaking I think the marketplace licence doesn't really allow for that, but since they are free I'm wondering if this would be sort of a case of 'fair use'...
-Ryan
I recently took a free package from the marketplace and updated it for 5.7 (as I needed it on a project). I then contacted the original developer, offering the code if they wanted to update their listing to include the new version.
I haven't received a response, so that leaves me wondering - what do we do about some of the free useful 5.6 add-ons, especially the simpler ones?
Do I just package it up myself, put it on the marketplace and give a polite nod to the original 5.6 developer? Strictly speaking I think the marketplace licence doesn't really allow for that, but since they are free I'm wondering if this would be sort of a case of 'fair use'...
-Ryan
Speaking as someone who wants more 5.7 packages I say go for it. Talked to Franz as well and he said the same thing.
@Andrew.
You need to re-read your own licence. There is a nasty pitfall in there for Mesuva.
Quote>>
2. Augmenting Code. Customer may modify, supplement, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the System. Any modifications are fully owned by customer, and do not effect the license limitations for further use. Customer shall have no right to copy the System without DEVELOPMENT PARTNER’s prior written consent, which may be withheld for any reason.
3. Ownership. The System is licensed, not sold. Customer acknowledges that the System (including any changes Customer may request or suggest) is the property of DEVELOPMENT PARTNER or its licensors. Title to the System and all related intellectual property will remain with DEVELOPMENT PARTNER and its licensors at all times, as will all other rights not explicitly granted to Customer in this Agreement.
<<
You need to re-read your own licence. There is a nasty pitfall in there for Mesuva.
Quote>>
2. Augmenting Code. Customer may modify, supplement, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the System. Any modifications are fully owned by customer, and do not effect the license limitations for further use. Customer shall have no right to copy the System without DEVELOPMENT PARTNER’s prior written consent, which may be withheld for any reason.
3. Ownership. The System is licensed, not sold. Customer acknowledges that the System (including any changes Customer may request or suggest) is the property of DEVELOPMENT PARTNER or its licensors. Title to the System and all related intellectual property will remain with DEVELOPMENT PARTNER and its licensors at all times, as will all other rights not explicitly granted to Customer in this Agreement.
<<
Given that the poster said the add-on was free and didn't link to the add-on, we blithely assumed that it was released under the MIT or GPL license which the marketplace very much supports.
Frankly if he's released a free add-on under our commercial open source license, that's probably a mistake that should be resolved.
Frankly if he's released a free add-on under our commercial open source license, that's probably a mistake that should be resolved.
I purposely didn't mention the add-on as I didn't want to 'name and shame' someone purely on the fact they haven't replied to my message.
I think it's going to pretty common for free add-ons to be still under the marketplace license, I've done this myself without realising.
To be more specific though, I'm not talking about taking some big free add-on, reworking it and releasing it under my name, I'm only talking about the small/simple add-ons, stuff that is more development oriented, like attributes types, etc. It's stuff that really there is only one way to write it, so my question wasn't so much about copying code, it's more about stepping on someones toes when they're the original 'owner' of that add-on.
Ultimately we have to be a bit pragmatic I think. The purpose of the marketplace licence is to protect peoples' work and their rights, not to be some rule that makes moving forward difficult. I'd make the assumption that 99% of those developers that released an add-on for free on the marketplace were doing so to help promote the platform, to give something back to the community and to promote their skills without money being involved. If someone has been given the chance to update their add-on for 5.7 and has been contacted about it, and they don't respond, I'd say there's little harm on others updating the add-ons for 5.7, especially if it continues to be free - i.e. in the spirit of the original development.
If once something is released and the original dev DOES have an issue with it, discussions can be had and stuff removed (or hopefully left in place). The marketplace license would give them the right to ask for it to be removed, but I don't think it should stop us from going forward, just something to be mindful of.
I think it's really just a case of being courteous to the original dev.
I think it's going to pretty common for free add-ons to be still under the marketplace license, I've done this myself without realising.
To be more specific though, I'm not talking about taking some big free add-on, reworking it and releasing it under my name, I'm only talking about the small/simple add-ons, stuff that is more development oriented, like attributes types, etc. It's stuff that really there is only one way to write it, so my question wasn't so much about copying code, it's more about stepping on someones toes when they're the original 'owner' of that add-on.
Ultimately we have to be a bit pragmatic I think. The purpose of the marketplace licence is to protect peoples' work and their rights, not to be some rule that makes moving forward difficult. I'd make the assumption that 99% of those developers that released an add-on for free on the marketplace were doing so to help promote the platform, to give something back to the community and to promote their skills without money being involved. If someone has been given the chance to update their add-on for 5.7 and has been contacted about it, and they don't respond, I'd say there's little harm on others updating the add-ons for 5.7, especially if it continues to be free - i.e. in the spirit of the original development.
If once something is released and the original dev DOES have an issue with it, discussions can be had and stuff removed (or hopefully left in place). The marketplace license would give them the right to ask for it to be removed, but I don't think it should stop us from going forward, just something to be mindful of.
I think it's really just a case of being courteous to the original dev.
From the end-user point of view (mine), the availabilty of the many "little add-ons" that are helpful and usually free is a very important thing when considering which version I will build a current project on.
I'd love to use 5.7 completely now, but I just can't - given the small amount of add-ons right now.
Something I could think of when dealing with "free" add-ons that should be developed to 5.7 would be something like a scheduled time (4-8 weeks) in which the original developer could deny the use of his/her code for a new 5.7 add-on.
If the original developer is no more available or does not care, within some time (which shall cover all usual"cannot respond"-incidents), the add-on would then be available to the public.
In any case, it would be fair to mention the person who wrote the code in the beginning. In my opinion - regarding "free add-ons", where the commercial intention is not the incentive to spend time coding - the growth of 5.7-ready add-ons should be priority.
I'd love to use 5.7 completely now, but I just can't - given the small amount of add-ons right now.
Something I could think of when dealing with "free" add-ons that should be developed to 5.7 would be something like a scheduled time (4-8 weeks) in which the original developer could deny the use of his/her code for a new 5.7 add-on.
If the original developer is no more available or does not care, within some time (which shall cover all usual"cannot respond"-incidents), the add-on would then be available to the public.
In any case, it would be fair to mention the person who wrote the code in the beginning. In my opinion - regarding "free add-ons", where the commercial intention is not the incentive to spend time coding - the growth of 5.7-ready add-ons should be priority.
Well, reading this I have a little concern:
- I personnaly have free addons that I release under the marketplace license (and this is no mistake)
- getting no answer from a dev does not mean much, it depends on how much time you let him and how you tried to contact him (history prooved that using PM or support forum is not always the most efficient way).
That said, since those addons are, as you said pretty small and simple, why not simply make your own doing the same thing, but not using their code ?
- I personnaly have free addons that I release under the marketplace license (and this is no mistake)
- getting no answer from a dev does not mean much, it depends on how much time you let him and how you tried to contact him (history prooved that using PM or support forum is not always the most efficient way).
That said, since those addons are, as you said pretty small and simple, why not simply make your own doing the same thing, but not using their code ?
+1
Where I release a free package containing code intended as an example for others to use or follow, I explicitly state what that code is. Anything else is mine.
Free packages under the marketplace license are often put together as tasters for more involved packages. Free packages often contain code developers would consider proprietary.
With abandoned packages, perhaps a lead could be taken from physical lost property. How long do the police, airlines, bus company and railways hang on to 'lost property' before, having made reasonable efforts to establish and contact the owner, they auction it off?
Where I release a free package containing code intended as an example for others to use or follow, I explicitly state what that code is. Anything else is mine.
Free packages under the marketplace license are often put together as tasters for more involved packages. Free packages often contain code developers would consider proprietary.
With abandoned packages, perhaps a lead could be taken from physical lost property. How long do the police, airlines, bus company and railways hang on to 'lost property' before, having made reasonable efforts to establish and contact the owner, they auction it off?
(to answer your last point, that would be 1 year in France, and China, not sure for other countries)
Sounds right.
There is no sacred ground in our marketplace. Just because you were first to solve a problem doesn't mean you're the only solution that's going to be out there. Look at the way the "blog" add-on ecosystem has changed over the years, or the paid and free snowflake add-on debate from some time ago. There's even ecommerce add-ons that compete with our own, and it certainly puts bread on our table.
Having written (and re-read, thanks in advance) our agreements - it really is on the marketplace developer to declare their IP ownership rights of the code they're submitting, along with picking a relevant license. Now your original message says you just updated their add-on for 5.7, but your reply implies there's not much there that is unique. The reality is code is a bit like porn (lets wait for /that/ to bite me later...) in that there's a blurry line between best practices, cleanly formatted code, and 'hey you just copied my stuff and called it your own!!' it's one of those "we all know it when we see it" cases.. (see, I brought it around!)
In the real world the biggest issues we'd had around IP in the marketplace have been:
1) People packing up someone else's work on a site like code canyon for concrete5 under a vague "developer" or "unlimited" license that was written poorly and has never been to court. Add a few years and whoever made that original code is kinda resentful that someone else is 'getting rich' selling it in our marketplace. Typically these problems can be worked out.
2) People "borrowing" chunks of code from a paid/free theme/add-on for their own paid theme/add-on. These problems tend to not work out well.
Since you're not doing either, and your spirit seems to be in the right place (helping something that's free be freely accessible by more people) my gut, as a fellow human, is you're probably playing it right.
As CEO, I'm saying nothing and giving you no official yay or nay. I haven't seen what you're talking about. I feel an overwhelming urge to just to move forward - anything distracting from that will be ignored, or killed and ignored. ;)
There is no sacred ground in our marketplace. Just because you were first to solve a problem doesn't mean you're the only solution that's going to be out there. Look at the way the "blog" add-on ecosystem has changed over the years, or the paid and free snowflake add-on debate from some time ago. There's even ecommerce add-ons that compete with our own, and it certainly puts bread on our table.
Having written (and re-read, thanks in advance) our agreements - it really is on the marketplace developer to declare their IP ownership rights of the code they're submitting, along with picking a relevant license. Now your original message says you just updated their add-on for 5.7, but your reply implies there's not much there that is unique. The reality is code is a bit like porn (lets wait for /that/ to bite me later...) in that there's a blurry line between best practices, cleanly formatted code, and 'hey you just copied my stuff and called it your own!!' it's one of those "we all know it when we see it" cases.. (see, I brought it around!)
In the real world the biggest issues we'd had around IP in the marketplace have been:
1) People packing up someone else's work on a site like code canyon for concrete5 under a vague "developer" or "unlimited" license that was written poorly and has never been to court. Add a few years and whoever made that original code is kinda resentful that someone else is 'getting rich' selling it in our marketplace. Typically these problems can be worked out.
2) People "borrowing" chunks of code from a paid/free theme/add-on for their own paid theme/add-on. These problems tend to not work out well.
Since you're not doing either, and your spirit seems to be in the right place (helping something that's free be freely accessible by more people) my gut, as a fellow human, is you're probably playing it right.
As CEO, I'm saying nothing and giving you no official yay or nay. I haven't seen what you're talking about. I feel an overwhelming urge to just to move forward - anything distracting from that will be ignored, or killed and ignored. ;)
@Mesuva
I'm just pointing out that it is *never* better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission when it comes to licences.
Get permission or write it yourself always works regardless of licencing scheme. Good intentions mean nothing to lawyers so are you prepared to risk being dragged through courts just for a free addon for a CMS?
As a generic issue. Perhaps the concrete team want to insulate developers by re-releasing all the 5.6 free addons under a MIT licence so they take the risk but we do the donkey work?
I'm just pointing out that it is *never* better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission when it comes to licences.
Get permission or write it yourself always works regardless of licencing scheme. Good intentions mean nothing to lawyers so are you prepared to risk being dragged through courts just for a free addon for a CMS?
As a generic issue. Perhaps the concrete team want to insulate developers by re-releasing all the 5.6 free addons under a MIT licence so they take the risk but we do the donkey work?
Having been involved in copyright legalities (here in Canada) and using legal to draft project agreements and contract agreements over the years, I would say that cost alone would be prohibitive in taking someone to court over a free add-on. It wouldn't be worth anyone's time as there wouldn't be any damages to sue for.
Generally the first thing issued is a cease and desist letter.
Like the others have indicated - unless there is something specifically targeting the proprietary nature of the add-on in the license, I really wouldn't worry about it. But kudos for making the effort to reach out - I think thats the right thing to do. Cheers.
Generally the first thing issued is a cease and desist letter.
Like the others have indicated - unless there is something specifically targeting the proprietary nature of the add-on in the license, I really wouldn't worry about it. But kudos for making the effort to reach out - I think thats the right thing to do. Cheers.
@juddc
In the UK it is possible to summons for the grand old price of GBP 815 if the claim is less than GBP 100,000. If the defendant chooses not to fight; it's an automatic win for the plaintiff. It is not cost prohibitive to start the process as many IP trolls are proving and lawyers can be employed later if you fight hard or it's decided 100,000 is not enough.
Care to try your luck?
In the UK it is possible to summons for the grand old price of GBP 815 if the claim is less than GBP 100,000. If the defendant chooses not to fight; it's an automatic win for the plaintiff. It is not cost prohibitive to start the process as many IP trolls are proving and lawyers can be employed later if you fight hard or it's decided 100,000 is not enough.
Care to try your luck?
In Australia we settle disputes the old fashioned way:
- We drink until we're both angry, fight until someone's thongs* get knocked off and the ground is too hot to stand on or the snags are cooked, whichever comes first. Then we shake hands, drink some more and not remember it the next day.
(* flip flops for those who don't understand that ya wear ya thongs on ya feet)
- We drink until we're both angry, fight until someone's thongs* get knocked off and the ground is too hot to stand on or the snags are cooked, whichever comes first. Then we shake hands, drink some more and not remember it the next day.
(* flip flops for those who don't understand that ya wear ya thongs on ya feet)
That must create a hell of a feedback loop :)
Well, must be good market, the bar and pubs in Australia that is ;)
Let me reiterate what I said in my second message, since my original question was perhaps a bit too vague.
I'm not talking here about taking marketplace licensed 5.6 packages, make a few tweaks and putting them up for 5.7. That's clearly a violation of the licence and it's also just not very polite. I'm also no wanting there to be timeout periods or changes of licensing.
I'm not even talking about code here as such. I'm talking about add-ons that contain so little code, where there really is only one way to write it, AND/OR cases where something is re-written from scratch but has functionality that is pretty much identical so the name of the package would be the same.
In these cases it's not the IP of the code I'm talking about, it's simply that someone else sort of took responsibility for that feature/package under 5.6.
What I think confused things was me saying that I'd taken an existing package and updated it. I _could_ have re-written it myself, but I would have ended up with almost the exact same code. Instead of re-writing I thought it was more logical to just use the 5.6 version as a reference and offer the 5.7 back to the original dev, with the aim to have some continuity so that something is named the same between 5.6 and 5.7.
So my question SHOULD have been:
- Can we release a package for 5.7 as the same name as something for 5.6 that someone else wrote?
I'm not talking here about taking marketplace licensed 5.6 packages, make a few tweaks and putting them up for 5.7. That's clearly a violation of the licence and it's also just not very polite. I'm also no wanting there to be timeout periods or changes of licensing.
I'm not even talking about code here as such. I'm talking about add-ons that contain so little code, where there really is only one way to write it, AND/OR cases where something is re-written from scratch but has functionality that is pretty much identical so the name of the package would be the same.
In these cases it's not the IP of the code I'm talking about, it's simply that someone else sort of took responsibility for that feature/package under 5.6.
What I think confused things was me saying that I'd taken an existing package and updated it. I _could_ have re-written it myself, but I would have ended up with almost the exact same code. Instead of re-writing I thought it was more logical to just use the 5.6 version as a reference and offer the 5.7 back to the original dev, with the aim to have some continuity so that something is named the same between 5.6 and 5.7.
So my question SHOULD have been:
- Can we release a package for 5.7 as the same name as something for 5.6 that someone else wrote?
That last one, I beleive is ok.
Well, that said, there are now new rules about naming addons on the 5.7 markets, and that is "addons can not bear a 3rd party name if the developer branding is not clearly stressed before", (we currently have a dispute of that sort on the PRB…). See here:https://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/submitting-to-the-marketp...
excerpt from the thread:
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Bootstrap Table"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Bootstrap Table by My Brand"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Bootstrap Table for concrete5"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "concrete5 Bootstrap Table"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Fantastic Bootstrap Table"
(OK) - "My Brand Bootstrap Table"
(OK) - "Something Else that takes the emphasis Bootstrap Table"
(PREFERRED) - "My Brand Fantastic Table"
(PREFERRED) - "Fantastic Table"
Besides this, that should be OK
Well, that said, there are now new rules about naming addons on the 5.7 markets, and that is "addons can not bear a 3rd party name if the developer branding is not clearly stressed before", (we currently have a dispute of that sort on the PRB…). See here:https://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/submitting-to-the-marketp...
excerpt from the thread:
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Bootstrap Table"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Bootstrap Table by My Brand"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Bootstrap Table for concrete5"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "concrete5 Bootstrap Table"
(UNACCEPTABLE) - "Fantastic Bootstrap Table"
(OK) - "My Brand Bootstrap Table"
(OK) - "Something Else that takes the emphasis Bootstrap Table"
(PREFERRED) - "My Brand Fantastic Table"
(PREFERRED) - "Fantastic Table"
Besides this, that should be OK
@Mesuva
QUOTE>>
- Can we release a package for 5.7 as the same name as something for 5.6 that someone else wrote?
<<
So. You are saying that you have written an addon from scratch that is named identically to someone elses addon (albeit a different concrete compatible version) and the code looks almost identical (except probably for namespacing) and are going to claim ownership.
Playing devils advocate and posing as the original developer of this hypothetical addon, I would accuse you of modifying my original and you really wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it looks like my duck, quacks like my duck and you've even named the duck Roger (the name of my duck). Your only defence seems to be "Honest guv, I didn't copy it. I just looked at it a few times to see how it worked and it turned out the same"
I don't fancy your chances :)
QUOTE>>
- Can we release a package for 5.7 as the same name as something for 5.6 that someone else wrote?
<<
So. You are saying that you have written an addon from scratch that is named identically to someone elses addon (albeit a different concrete compatible version) and the code looks almost identical (except probably for namespacing) and are going to claim ownership.
Playing devils advocate and posing as the original developer of this hypothetical addon, I would accuse you of modifying my original and you really wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it looks like my duck, quacks like my duck and you've even named the duck Roger (the name of my duck). Your only defence seems to be "Honest guv, I didn't copy it. I just looked at it a few times to see how it worked and it turned out the same"
I don't fancy your chances :)
This is kind of exactly the same thing I tried to address a while ago:
https://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/5-7-discussion/free-stuff...
It's hard to change people's mindset when the standard license seems to be the de facto and is also pushed at your face (without you even necessarily noticing) when you publish a free add-on.
https://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/5-7-discussion/free-stuff...
It's hard to change people's mindset when the standard license seems to be the de facto and is also pushed at your face (without you even necessarily noticing) when you publish a free add-on.
On
http://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/5-7-discussion/what-to-do...
I suggested
"Maybe the marketplace license need a new clause about abandoned addons. That couldn't be applied retrospectively, but at least would make provision for future submissions."
http://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/5-7-discussion/what-to-do...
I suggested
"Maybe the marketplace license need a new clause about abandoned addons. That couldn't be applied retrospectively, but at least would make provision for future submissions."
The commercial add-on license really shouldn't be used for add-ons that are free. It's structured around the idea that the license costs /something/ so when that license doesn't, a lot of the terms aren't going to make any sense.
Sure, we could make that more clear in the add-on submission process, perhaps even with a ruleset that keeps you from doing it. We could also run through and find anyone who has picked the wrong license and get them to adjust. These are all things we could do and probably should, but they're not legally on our shoulders to do so. We're extremely clear when you submit stuff that YOU are the vendor and we are just the venue. You're taking on the IP issues and the first thing we're going to do in any legal debate is turn off sales/downloads for all the add-ons/themes in question. I'll happily put "make licensing easier for vendors to not screw up" on our nice to have list, but it's not going to take priority over getting ecommerce out the door for 5.7, etc.
Additionally, the commercial add-on license clearly states that the laws applied will be US, Oregon:
"This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Oregon, without regard to its choice of law rules. By entering into this Agreement Customer agrees to be subject to personal jurisdiction in Oregon courts. Any litigation arising from or related to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts in Multnomah County, Oregon. "
I am not a lawyer, and I find it really odd that the UK legal system would award cash to someone in a case where no cash damages happened, but even assuming that's true - doesn't matter. You're playing by the rules here.
Here in 'murica - the type of legal action you take is very much limited by the amount you've been damaged. So yeah, take a copy of eCommerce and reupload it as yours, I can sue you for the damages to my clear revenue stream you've created. I might be able to sue you for some low multiplier on what I would have made if you hadn't messed things up. Etc.
If I'm making ZERO off of licensing the thing, I'm not getting into court - there's no damages.
Now you might be able to make an argument that the money you make is in services and support after people get a free license. Conceivable, but since this thread started with the fellow saying he tried to contact the person and heard nothing, it'd be a hard argument to make that there was real business happening.
Even more tedious, anything under $4k is going to small claims court (at best) and even if you win, its up to you to collect those damages. That means you're going to learn a lot about doing background checks on people and calling their employer for garnishments...
All of these seems extremely unlikely given the scenario that was painted to Andy and I, which is why I stand by his answer of "go for it." From what we've been told, everyone has the same intentions and is communicating as best as they can - there should be no legal issues if that's true.
Regarding copyright and small coding projects - again we're not going to solve that today - no one can. I agree, particularly as languages get more structured, there's often a single right way to code something simple and many individuals would have similar results regardless of if they saw each others code or not. Just like the "is it porn or art" debate in congress, there's really no systemic way to determine so it comes down to a case by case decision. Adding in the chaos of the patent system in the US today doesn't help. The reality is, again, this simply doesn't matter if there isn't money involved (again in state's laws which fortunately are all we care about). Sadly with all things where money is involved, chances are whoever is willing to throw more at their side will likely win the debate.
Regarding IP rights expiring through in-activity. I dunno, that seems sketchy to me for a number of reasons. I think we're better off just saying we reserve the right to dump your listing for any reason we may want, and then just eliminating anything that's abandoned before someone else comes and fills the hole.
Sure, we could make that more clear in the add-on submission process, perhaps even with a ruleset that keeps you from doing it. We could also run through and find anyone who has picked the wrong license and get them to adjust. These are all things we could do and probably should, but they're not legally on our shoulders to do so. We're extremely clear when you submit stuff that YOU are the vendor and we are just the venue. You're taking on the IP issues and the first thing we're going to do in any legal debate is turn off sales/downloads for all the add-ons/themes in question. I'll happily put "make licensing easier for vendors to not screw up" on our nice to have list, but it's not going to take priority over getting ecommerce out the door for 5.7, etc.
Additionally, the commercial add-on license clearly states that the laws applied will be US, Oregon:
"This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Oregon, without regard to its choice of law rules. By entering into this Agreement Customer agrees to be subject to personal jurisdiction in Oregon courts. Any litigation arising from or related to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts in Multnomah County, Oregon. "
I am not a lawyer, and I find it really odd that the UK legal system would award cash to someone in a case where no cash damages happened, but even assuming that's true - doesn't matter. You're playing by the rules here.
Here in 'murica - the type of legal action you take is very much limited by the amount you've been damaged. So yeah, take a copy of eCommerce and reupload it as yours, I can sue you for the damages to my clear revenue stream you've created. I might be able to sue you for some low multiplier on what I would have made if you hadn't messed things up. Etc.
If I'm making ZERO off of licensing the thing, I'm not getting into court - there's no damages.
Now you might be able to make an argument that the money you make is in services and support after people get a free license. Conceivable, but since this thread started with the fellow saying he tried to contact the person and heard nothing, it'd be a hard argument to make that there was real business happening.
Even more tedious, anything under $4k is going to small claims court (at best) and even if you win, its up to you to collect those damages. That means you're going to learn a lot about doing background checks on people and calling their employer for garnishments...
All of these seems extremely unlikely given the scenario that was painted to Andy and I, which is why I stand by his answer of "go for it." From what we've been told, everyone has the same intentions and is communicating as best as they can - there should be no legal issues if that's true.
Regarding copyright and small coding projects - again we're not going to solve that today - no one can. I agree, particularly as languages get more structured, there's often a single right way to code something simple and many individuals would have similar results regardless of if they saw each others code or not. Just like the "is it porn or art" debate in congress, there's really no systemic way to determine so it comes down to a case by case decision. Adding in the chaos of the patent system in the US today doesn't help. The reality is, again, this simply doesn't matter if there isn't money involved (again in state's laws which fortunately are all we care about). Sadly with all things where money is involved, chances are whoever is willing to throw more at their side will likely win the debate.
Regarding IP rights expiring through in-activity. I dunno, that seems sketchy to me for a number of reasons. I think we're better off just saying we reserve the right to dump your listing for any reason we may want, and then just eliminating anything that's abandoned before someone else comes and fills the hole.
