This is a community draft. Before promoting the license or relying on it for commercial sales, a licensing attorney in the relevant jurisdiction(s) should review the following. Flag these specifically — don't just ask "is this okay."
-
Self-executing future grant (Section 5–6). The license grants public rights automatically on a future condition, with no act by the Licensor. BSL does essentially this on a fixed date and is widely relied upon; confirm the conditional trigger (dormancy rather than a date) is equally clean and that the irrevocable grant survives the Licensor's bankruptcy or death (i.e. it binds successors, estates, and acquirers).
-
Dormancy definition (Section 4). Is "no maintenance signal + no support response in 90 days" objective enough to be enforceable, and does it create any unintended trigger (e.g. a developer on medical leave)? Consider whether a cure/notice period before Sunset is desirable or whether it undermines the promise.
-
Disclaimer & liability on/after Sunset (Sections 8–9). Releasing unmaintained code to the public "as is" — confirm the disclaimer is effective against downstream users in consumer-protection jurisdictions (EU, etc.).
-
Patent grant (Section 7). Confirm scope and the litigation-termination clause are consistent with the chosen Change License's own patent terms (MPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0 each handle patents differently).
-
Trademark / badge use. The plan keeps the license text CC0 but the name and badge as marks. Confirm this split is enforceable and decide whether to register the mark.
- Should there be a maximum Sunset date as a backstop (like BSL's 4-year cap), so the promise holds even if the dormancy detection somehow never fires?
- Should prior purchasers get any rights before public Sunset (e.g. a head start), or is fully-public-on-trigger the final answer? (Current draft: fully public.)
- Jurisdiction / governing-law clause — currently omitted; add one?
These notes were drafted by a non-lawyer to scope the review, not to substitute for it.