[IANAD]

I'm not sure if this will work as it is currently, and here's why:

https://github.com/boyter/searchcode-server/blob/master/LICE...

Clearly shows that it is released under the Fair Source License, version 0.9 with no mention of license termination and restricted rights. It is NOT free.

https://github.com/boyter/searchcode-server/blob/master/READ...

then states:

'After the following date 27-August-2019 you may choose to use this software, version "1.2.3" or "1.2.4" under the GNU General Public License Version 3 with terms specified at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt'

This is so wrong. Not that it is GPL, but this both contradicts the license and states that you "may choose to use this software..." under the GNU GPLv3. Also, the missing comma after "1.2.4" is a mistake in grammar.

I'd say, as-is, you should consider this licensing unreliable. Yes, he posted in his blog stating his intention, but as it is now, it would appear that if a ruling had to be made on the actual license, it could very well be that the only valid license is the one in LICENSE.txt.

Since that is unclear, though, if I were a user and cared about the license, I'd get a good lawyer to figure this out before making any assumptions.

And, I would suggest that he get a lawyer to help craft the required changes to his license.

[tghw]

Dual licensing happens all the time, often with GPL and some other, more restrictive license. He clearly states that until X date, you may only use the code under the Fair Source License. After X date, you may choose which of the two licenses you would like to use.

There's no conflict in adding another license, it's his code, and the license and his directives dictate how people can copy and distribute it. Nor does the fact that there's only one license in LICENSE.txt really mean anything. README.txt is clear about the dual license in its "Licence" section.

[IANAD]

What about the following text in README:

'If you are building from source then you get no support and must work within the restrictions specified of the fair source licence (see LICENSE.txt for details). To purchase support see https://searchcode.com/product/#downloadlinks'

And what about:

'Use of this software is governed by the Fair Source License included in the LICENSE.TXT file'

No period there at the end, but that seems to indicate to use the LICENSE.TXT.

And then, even worse:

'In order to deal with the case of my death or this software becoming abandoned it has a time-bomb where the licence will change exactly 3 years after the publish date of a version release. This means that if version 1.0.0 was released on 1 July 2010 then it can be taken using the listed alternate licence on 2 July 2013. This licence, version and time is all specified below.'

There is no definition of what 'software becoming abandoned' (Which 'software'? What does 'abandoned' mean?). There is no definition of what 'it can be taken' means. The example date is one day more than three years and the dates given as examples could confuse the date intended for expiry. There is no definition of what should be used as the 'publish date of a version release'.

While these things may seem common sense to a developer, they should have a clear legal interpretation.

[njharman]

> clear legal interpretation

In US, those only exist from precedent. Which means after going to court and getting a ruling, often several times as different courts will rule differently. Eventually being normalized by supreme court.

The US legal system is not well-speced or deterministic for new concepts.

[tghw]

You're picking nits. The intent is clear from multiple reproducible sources. For there to be any issue, the developer (or an assignee) would have to file suit, at which point it would be trivial to demonstrate that it was clearly communicated that the old versions assumed a second license. The copyright holder would have a very steep uphill battle to show otherwise.

[boyter]

Actually following that time frame I will be updating the fork to relicense to avoid this issue. I had hoped that the intent mentioned was clear enough to avoid any issues.

If someone with legal chops wanta to provide a nice legal way of saying that feel free to do so and I will provide due credit.

[IANAD]

Great! Might try contacting FSF. They could help you get it sorted:

http://www.fsf.org/