2

I preserve old software by asking copyright owners (often one author) to release the source code under an Open Source License, GPL or MIT. In many cases the source is gone, but the binaries still exist. Often they were released under some home made license 20 years ago. If I'm correct the binaries could be released under MIT, which would give them a world wide recognized license, keeping the copyright owner, but also make it possible to do derived works for the user in clear legal way? (I know that much of this would fall under "abandonware" but that is not a legal term). So the question is - is MIT a correct choice for binaries where the source code is lost?

Beamie
  • 237
  • 1
  • 6
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of [What is the "default" software license?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/26548/what-is-the-default-software-license) – gnat Apr 11 '18 at 11:48
  • 5
    That question doesn't answer this question at all. – Beamie Apr 11 '18 at 11:51
  • it totally does, it explains what is considered as default when you have no knowledge of original license – gnat Apr 11 '18 at 12:15
  • But this question isn't about having no knowledge. It's about asking the authors to release their work under a specific license, and whether, in the case where the work no longer exists as source code but only in binary form, MIT is a good choice of license. – Sebastian Redl Apr 11 '18 at 12:26
  • Some questions: is the original author in the same legal system as you (i.e. same country's laws for copyrighted works)? Is the original author the clear sole creator or have the whole license for that work (i.e. do they have the complete authority to make the decision)? Does your country's copyright law authorize transfer of ownership or re-releasing under a new license. If any of these is no, there's your answer. – Berin Loritsch Apr 11 '18 at 12:26
  • @gnat Not knowing what the license is hardly implies it has(had) none (or default). Pretty sure that is even more restrictive than the default one since it could contain virtually anything (like agreeing to be part of human centipede). – wondra Apr 11 '18 at 12:27
  • 5
    @gnat: where in this question do you read "there is no knowledge of the original license"? Quite the opposite, the OP asked about a case where the author is available, only the source code is missing. – Doc Brown Apr 11 '18 at 12:38
  • @DocBrown I said nothing about availability of the author, nor the duplicate question is about availability, why do you put words into my mouth – gnat Apr 11 '18 at 12:56
  • @BerinLoritsch Good questions. I can answer all of these yes, but there might be other cases in the future. – Beamie Apr 11 '18 at 12:58
  • 1
    @wondra LOL. I would think twice about using that software. – Beamie Apr 11 '18 at 13:00
  • 4
    @gnat: apparently there is a misunderstanding. Your comment above *("it explains what is considered as default when you have no knowledge of original license")* IMHO implies the OP's (Beamie's) case is similar. But to my understanding, he knows the author, so it is very unlikely there is no knowledge of original license, and even if the author cannot remember what license he used 20 years ago, he can always pick a new license, so it actually does not matter. – Doc Brown Apr 11 '18 at 13:09
  • @gnat: ... the question you linked too, however, would apply if the author willingly refuses to add a license like MIT to his program. – Doc Brown Apr 11 '18 at 13:41
  • I've updated the original question so that it is clear that it is the copyright owner I ask (before it said "author", but I really meant copyright owner with that). – Beamie Apr 11 '18 at 13:45

1 Answers1

5

In every jurisdiction I know, the author or copyright holder of a software can pick whatever license they like, source code available or not. And nowhere in the MIT license does the term "source code" occur, so the answer is clearly yes.

However, make sure you are really talking to the person(s) who have the full copyrights for the program in stake, as mentioned @BerinLoritsch.

Doc Brown
  • 199,015
  • 33
  • 367
  • 565
  • Providing that portions of the copyright are not individually owned... That's one of the reasons that the Apache Software Foundation has you signing a legal document stating that any code contributed is considered a work for hire--i.e. the ASF owns the code. If there is no clear ownership then all who worked on the project (or whoever inherited their copyrights) would have to agree. – Berin Loritsch Apr 11 '18 at 12:41
  • @doc-brown That is also how I understood the MIT license. It just mentions "software", and not if it is in source code or binary form. Thanks for helping pointing this out.Creative Commons was the first I was thinking of for this case - but they even recommend against using it for software. – Beamie Apr 11 '18 at 12:48
  • @Beamie: Except CC0 (aka "Public Domain in jurisdictions where that exists and as close to PD as possible in jurisdictions where it doesn't"), which explicitly can be used for software. – Jörg W Mittag Apr 11 '18 at 13:32
  • One important caveat: if OP received the binaries under some license, they are still bound by that license. It is not generally possible to publish them under the MIT license if they weren't under MIT already. E.g. if they received binaries under the GPL, they cannot re-license them as MIT. Unfortunately, they cannot share GPL'ed binaries at all if they cannot produce the source :( – amon Apr 11 '18 at 14:04
  • The copyright owner might be able change to BSD-style at a later point. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1409666/switching-license-from-gpl-to-bsd-in-later-time. – Beamie Apr 11 '18 at 16:07
  • What goes for the source code really, If a binary was released under GPL, but source was lost - would a dissassemble of the binary fulfil the GPL source code license. Hmm.Off-topic. – Beamie Apr 11 '18 at 16:08