Revocable licence

Terms under 2.2 says:

“The Licence is revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable.”

Under which circumstances should the ‘revocable’ part come into play?
As I understand it, enforcement of it could put a manufacturer in an awkward position.
Are you able to clarify?


Hi @isvaljek ,

Really good question. The thing to clarify here is that we’re actually talking about three separate agreements that might affect a manufacturer:

1. The Creative commons licence The open source licence that covers the WikiHouse building system as intellectual property. This is not revocable.

2. The website terms of use (Which is where the bit of text above comes from). This determines the use of the website. This is revocable, so for example if someone started doing bad things (ie posting abusive content or malware in this forum or something) they can be excluded. But that would not prevent them from using the WikiHouse building system, only the website. We’d never do this unless someone was breaking the terms of use or code of conduct, so I can’t imagine that any manufacturer using the website in good faith would ever encounter this issue.

3. The WikiHouse Manufacturers Agreement Which is a specific agreement that manufacturers can enter into to be named as a WikiHouse Manufacturer and listed on this page. This is of course completely optional and can be terminated by either the manufacturer or the WikiHouse team at any time, but that would not prevent them from continuing to use the system under the WikiHouse licence, or using this website, it would just end the additional partnership between WikiHouse and the manufacturer.

Is that a useful answer?

This makes perfect sense and it’s in line of what I’d expect.
Otherwise, a manufacturer would potentially have a liability on its hands.
Do not get me wrong, I have good faith in noble intentions of this project, for sure.

The remaining issue is that the Github page containing the blueprints says that
the work is licenced under CC-by-SA AND at the same time is says that

“By using this information you agree to the (EULA)”

which in turn links to the terms that I mentioned beforehand.

I hope that someone from the project could update the GitHub Skylark|
README file, so that it clearly reflects no terms other than the CC-by-SA,
or provide an alternative means of disambiguation. As is, one could argue
that the Skylark files themselves are subject to revocable licence.

Hope you understand, and I wish all the best for this project.

a prospective manufacturer :smile: :wink: