I am not a lawyer (IANAL) but my understanding is that copyright is completely unrelated to open source licensing. Under US law, the author of a literary or other creative work automatically has copyright protection of their work. No declarations or registrations are required. That copyright may expire some period of time after the author of the work is deceased. I'm not clear on the details, and the fact that the "Micky Mouse" copyright extensions keep changing that limit doesn't help clarity.
Open source licensing is not a right, it is a license that specifies the terms and conditions under which the source code may be used. The author decides what license terms to release the source code under, and the licensees (consumers of that source code) are held to that license. If the author's code is based upon a prior work, the author's license term options may be restricted by the license of the prior work.
I'm not aware of any expiration date associated with licenses. They are essentially contracts, so unless the contract/license explicitly states an expiration scenario, the license terms are in force forever.
发布评论
评论(2)
理论上,版权会过期。到那时,该作品如果不更新或更新,就会落入公共领域。
然而:
Copyright, in theory, expires. At that time the work, if not renewed or updated, would fall into the public domain.
However:
我不是律师(IANAL),但我的理解是版权与开源许可完全无关。根据美国法律,文学或其他创意作品的作者自动对其作品享有版权保护。无需声明或注册。该版权可能会在作品作者去世后一段时间内到期。我不清楚细节,而且“米奇老鼠”版权扩展不断改变这一限制这一事实无助于澄清。
开源许可不是一种权利,而是一种指定可以使用源代码的条款和条件的许可。作者决定根据什么许可条款发布源代码,并且被许可人(该源代码的使用者)必须遵守该许可。如果作者的代码基于先前的作品,则作者的许可条款选项可能会受到先前作品的许可的限制。
我不知道与许可证相关的任何到期日期。它们本质上是合同,因此除非合同/许可证明确规定到期情况,否则许可证条款将永远有效。
I am not a lawyer (IANAL) but my understanding is that copyright is completely unrelated to open source licensing. Under US law, the author of a literary or other creative work automatically has copyright protection of their work. No declarations or registrations are required. That copyright may expire some period of time after the author of the work is deceased. I'm not clear on the details, and the fact that the "Micky Mouse" copyright extensions keep changing that limit doesn't help clarity.
Open source licensing is not a right, it is a license that specifies the terms and conditions under which the source code may be used. The author decides what license terms to release the source code under, and the licensees (consumers of that source code) are held to that license. If the author's code is based upon a prior work, the author's license term options may be restricted by the license of the prior work.
I'm not aware of any expiration date associated with licenses. They are essentially contracts, so unless the contract/license explicitly states an expiration scenario, the license terms are in force forever.