Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The term “open source” can be tricky. For many people, it’s taken to mean that a particular piece of software is free and that they can do whatever they wish with it. But the reality is far more complex, and the actual rights you’re afforded as the user depend entirely on which license the developers chose to release their code under. Open source code can cost money, open source code can place limits on how you use it, and in some cases, open source code can even get you into trouble down the line.
Which is precisely what the Fedora Project is looking to avoid with their recent decision to reject all code licensed under the Creative Common’s “Public Domain Dedication” CC0 license. It will still be allowed for content such as artwork, and there may even be exceptions made for existing packages on a case-by-case basis, but CC0 will soon be stricken from the list of accepted code licenses for all new submissions.
[...] Those familiar with the Creative Commons and their family of licenses may find the most surprisingly element of this story is that the Fedora Project once accepted CC0 for software in the first place. After all, the intent was always to create a series of licenses specifically for creative works. The goal of the organization and its licenses is literally right in the name.
[...] The Creative Commons FAQ outlines several excellent reasons their licenses shouldn’t be used for software, but among them, there is one that particularly stands out for users like the Fedora Project — patent rights.
This might seem counterintuitive, since the CC0 license is intended for public domain works and clearly states that the creator is “waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law” by using it. But the problem is that patents aren’t covered by copyright law. In fact, a look at the full-text version of the license shows that CC0 contains a troubling clause under “Limitations and Disclaimers” that addresses this specifically: “No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.”
[...] It’s worth mentioning that this is by no means a new concern. In fact, the patent clause is what kept the Open Source Initiative’s (OSI) License Review Committee from being able to conclusively determine if CC0 actually met their definition of an open source license back in 2012. The Committee couldn’t reach consensus, as members were concerned that putting such language in a software license would set a dangerous precedent. Given its tumultuous history, Fedora’s decision to ever accept CC0 in the first place is even more perplexing.
[...] A better question might be, should you use CC0 code that you find floating around on the Internet? The answer to that is more nuanced, but given everything we’ve just gone over, one must wonder what kind of developer would still chose to use it. Unless you’re prepared to deal with the consequences of finding out, I’d suggest you leave it alone.
(Score: -1, Troll) by gearworms on Tuesday August 02 2022, @01:11AM
I have a bad feeling about this.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2022, @03:21AM (4 children)
Have only one copyright law:
"The right to copy shall not be infringed!"
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday August 02 2022, @10:22AM (2 children)
Indeed. And this is the way things were for 10s of thousands of years. It is the natural way. All of the copyright institutions are simply elaborate robbery schemes designed by grubby-handed parasites who never create anything original on their own. They only thieve.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Tuesday August 02 2022, @12:15PM (1 child)
You say this, but I'd be a bit miffed if a book I'd just written was suddenly printed and sold by every Tom, Dick and Harry without any say-so from me. I certainly wouldn't see a way to make a living as an author.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday August 02 2022, @06:09PM
This is why most early writings are either transaction records or religious texts. There was no way to make money off something like a novel before copyright. The best they could do was create a mythology that encouraged people to donate to their organization. Ha-ha, only serious.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 02 2022, @02:58PM
Sounds like the pirate party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party [wikipedia.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Touché) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 02 2022, @05:09AM (6 children)
You waive your copyright rights...but not trademark or patent rights. Isn't the whole point of public domain that people are supposed to be able to use it freely?
I was expecting the problem to be, different countries define "public domain" differently, but it sounds like the problem is a lot dumber than that.
IANAL
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 02 2022, @08:16AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rigrig on Tuesday August 02 2022, @11:33AM
Because it wasn't meant for code.
Apparently it made some lawyers happy to explicitly state that if a CC0 picture of patented WidgetX happens to show how it works, you can still only share the picture, not create your own widgets.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 02 2022, @12:57PM (2 children)
> Isn't the whole point of public domain that people are supposed to be able to use it freely?
It is. But waiving copyright protection only puts the copywritten parts in the public domain. If I have patents covering how the code works, you still can't legally distribute any functional derivative works - though you could sell posters of the code.
What gets me though is if they're excluding a license because it doesn't grant patent licensesas well, does that mean they've also excluded GPL2, Apache, etc., etc., etc.? I don't think any of the traditional OSS licenses include any patent licenses - they were all written before the patent office betrayed its responsibility and started granting patent rights to software, despite math being explicitly excluded from such protections.
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday August 02 2022, @04:48PM (1 child)
Also a patent grant in a license won't help against a submarine patent held by someone other than original distributor. Thus I believe that using licenses is ineffective way of countering patent threats. There are other ways of dealing with patents such as patent pools. If you hold a portfolio yourself this helps you fend everyone else off other than an NPE. Open source community has own variant of this idea too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 04 2022, @02:01PM
> Thus I believe that using licenses is ineffective way of countering patent threats.
Not against *all* threats, certainly.
They are though very good at defending against the kind of threat where, e.g., Microsoft contributes patent-protected code to Linux, waits for it to become ubiquitous, and then starts suing distributors or even users for patent violations.
As I recall, about the time the patent-granting licenses were catching on there were several large FOSS-participating corporations that were starting to behave in rather suspicious ways in that regard.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 02 2022, @03:43PM
If you strike it down, then artists will just have to create another license with that "feature".
Coca-Cola has a design patent on their funky looking glass bottle. Not that most people buy corn syrup soda in glass anymore, but they have a design patent on that weird shape and they aggressively legally defend it.
If I take a picture of me drinking a bottle of coke, I can CC0 license it for you to do anything you please with my picture. Please don't do anything X-rated, LOL, etc. I mean, yeah, I would laugh, but nobody wants to see that. Anyway its legal for me to license it and you to use it (it as in the photo) because under the CC0 I am NOT waiving the coca cola companies design patent to that glass bottle. You can't start bottling pepsi in coke bottles "because some idiot on the internet said its OK and its now legally all his fault"
You can take a picture of some idiot wearing a Nike tee shirt and do whatever you want with it, aside from waive Nike's design patent on their logo then selling tee shirts with my cropped "picture" of their design patented logo on it, for example.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Revek on Tuesday August 02 2022, @11:47AM (1 child)
IBM is like a cancer on open source and in general. They pretend to embrace it but it has always been a sham.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by Revek on Wednesday August 03 2022, @09:57PM
In what universe is fedora dropping open source license after acquisition by the most un open source friendly company ever, offtopic?
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 5, Funny) by Zinho on Tuesday August 02 2022, @01:47PM (1 child)
It's unfortunate that CC0 isn't doing its job; however, the community has already provided a suitable alternative: WTFPL! [wtfpl.net] Full license text from the website:
There you go, no patent clause :)
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday August 03 2022, @03:19PM
https://spdx.org/licenses/ [spdx.org]
SPDX says this is a FSF Free/Libre license but not OSI Approved ;)
https://spdx.org/licenses/WTFPL.html [spdx.org]