8

So I made this license, in the style of GPL3 as a humorous pinned post for my profile on X.com. But now I'm wondering if this is actually legally binding? I would like it to be.

Account Content License

Version 1.0

Permissions Granted

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person accessing this x dot com account and its associated content (the "Account"), to engage with the content under the following conditions:

Freedom to Share: You may copy, redistribute, and share the content in any medium or format.

Freedom to Modify: You may remix, transform, and build upon the content for any purpose, even commercially.

Source Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the original content, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the Account endorses you or your use.

Copyleft Provision: If you modify or build upon the content, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No Additional Restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Disclaimer of Warranty

THE ACCOUNT AND ITS CONTENT ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.

Limitation of Liability

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE ACCOUNT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES, OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOUNT OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE CONTENT.

Improve this question
2
  • What do you actually want to be binding? I don't see how the copyleft provision would translate to twitter (X) posts, for example. Does it mean that if I quote you in a new tweet, then does it mean that you want me to release my new tweet under the same license conditions as you have stated here? OTOH, if you are posting software or code on X, then itsn't this normally done through hyperlinks on that platform anyway? In which case, shouldn't you be placing the license conditions there where you have posted the software itself, rather than on your X account? Commented Sep 30, 2024 at 7:18
  • "Legally binding" isn't known until it is tested in court. Who is going to do that? Commented Oct 1, 2024 at 19:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
22

But now I'm wondering if this is actually legally binding?

Legally binding on whom?

As part of having an account on X.com, you have agreed to X.com's Term of Service (TOS). This TOS also contains a license for X.com to use your content.

By adding this license of your own, you have created a dual-license situation with regards to X.com. That allows them to choose which license terms they want to follow and that will undoubtedly be the terms from the TOS as those are much more favorable to X.com.

Other users of X.com do not have an automatic license to use your contributions and your post of this license does give them the right to use your contributions as long as they follow the license terms. For them, the license would then be binding as there are no other terms they can fall back to.

However, this does not mean that, if you get into a serious copyright battle, lawyers will not tear huge holes in your license.

Improve this answer
6
  • 16
    An an extra +1, if I could, for that last point. If you want to do this meaningfully, please use an existing free licence - CC BY-SA might serve you well, here - and read How can a crayon licence be a problem?. Commented Sep 30, 2024 at 7:57
  • Do you actually think that you can supersede/replace parts of the terms of service the user agreed to with X? I suppose they have restrictions in place what others can do with content on X; can you void/offer an alternative for those restraints after you have agreed to them? As a comparison: You work for an IT company and your contract -- as is common -- says "all what you produce is ours". Can you then go and dual-license your work for that company as GPL or even MIT? I don't think so. Commented Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04
  • 1
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica I guess that depends on whether the X.com TOS claims exclusivity? And of course the platform does not have to support others in using your alternative license. For example, you writing "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." does not mean that X.com now suddenly can't block users from crawling their website to retrieve your content. Commented Sep 30, 2024 at 11:16
  • 7
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica, the X TOS states that X gets a non-exclusive license and that the content remains yours. This means that you can offer the content also on different terms to others. That is different than a "work for hire", where your employer gets the exclusive rights. Commented Sep 30, 2024 at 11:25
  • @BartvanIngenSchenau Ah, thanks for the clarification. Commented Sep 30, 2024 at 11:29

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.