ORD-2.2
An individual developer checking licence continuity, under ORD 2.2
One person, no company, releasing or consuming work in their own name. You need to know whether a release ever changes licence by time alone. This resolves to the Root tier.
Tier
Owed
Nothing. No fee, no report, no filing.
Sections in play
1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
Who and what
The situation being resolved.
Actor
An individual developer
One person, no company, releasing or consuming work in their own name.
none
Situation
Checking licence continuity
You need to know whether a release ever changes licence by time alone.
Rulings
3 questions resolved against the text.
Which tier applies?
Root. One person, no company, releasing or consuming work in their own name. Below $20,000,000 in trailing revenue, or within an exempt category, no Canopy royalty applies. Sections 4, 6, 8, and 10 still bind every Licensee.
Sections 1.7, 2.1, 2.2
Is anything owed?
Nothing. No fee, no report, no filing.
Sections 2.1
Does the licence change by time alone?
No. Section 7 states that current releases do not convert automatically to Apache, MIT, Creative Commons, or any other fallback licence. A later version can apply to future releases only according to Section 16.
Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
Cautions
What this situation gets wrong most often.
Revenue is measured across entities under common control, per Section 1.4. A parent company above the threshold makes its subsidiary a Canopy Licensee regardless of that subsidiary's own turnover.
Section 8.3 of ORD requires a withdrawal of consent to propagate to any derivative you have distributed. Whether that is operationally achievable at depth is a published open question.
Same actor
Other situations for this party.
Non-normative. Where this and the licence text disagree, the licence text applies.