Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code [LWN.net]

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 14:53 UTC (Mon) by Flameeyes (guest, #51238) [Link]

Well there goes one of the differences between Google's and Fedora's recommendations for basically-public-domain options. I think the only option that both of them allow is now 0BSD?

See a view from a couple of years ago — https://flameeyes.blog/2020/04/16/making-it-easy-to-contr... where Unlicense was still listed by Google, not anymore.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 15:48 UTC (Mon) by martin.langhoff (guest, #61417) [Link] (5 responses)

So on trademarks, we accept that a sw license doesn't license the trademark. With patents, it seems like an un-solved problem so far. The clause at issue seems harmless to me on plain reading – "this license licenses the software, and just that" which almost shouldn't need to be said, right?

Part of the background story is that on patents, we've fought the scenario that a patent holder could offer some FOSS library implementing their patented method, and then come chase you for patent infringement. What are the boundaries for me, FOSS user, to not be ensnared by a submarine license?

But that has to be balanced out somehow within corps that have a large patent portfolio in one corner, and teams that might publish /unrelated/ FOSS throughout the corp. What are the boundaries for bigcorp to ensure that patent A doesn't get "indirectly licensed" via library X published by someone else in bigcorp? There's a few scenarios here that irk lawyers – ie: the software inadvertently implements a patented method, etc.

I do think there should be an agreed path – one that does not exist today, afaik – where a FOSS license doesn't "by default" license patents, but there's a way to protect interests on both sides.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 18:54 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

> But that has to be balanced out somehow within corps that have a large patent portfolio in one corner, and teams that might publish /unrelated/ FOSS throughout the corp. What are the boundaries for bigcorp to ensure that patent A doesn't get "indirectly licensed" via library X published by someone else in bigcorp? There's a few scenarios here that irk lawyers – ie: the software inadvertently implements a patented method, etc.

I'd much rather software patents were simply declared non-existent (and in practice I think they now have been - that battle has pretty much been won), but the best approach for you would simply be a licence saying "I won't sue you for using my software". A "no first aggression" clause. That would leave open retaliatory action - "If someone sues you, you can sue them back".

(When you have pro-patent Supreme Court Justices opining "I can't envisage any scenario where software passes the patent bar", it's going to take a bunch of new Judges to change things ...)

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 20:31 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

Just thought also ...

CC IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SOFTWARE LICENCE.

So it's no surprise there's a whole load of booby-traps there for people who mis-use it as one ...

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 21:51 UTC (Mon) by qyliss (subscriber, #131684) [Link] (1 responses)

CC IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SOFTWARE LICENCE.

That's the case for most Creative Commons licenses, but in fact Creative Commons does consider CC0 in particular to be suitable for software, although they didn't originally intend for it to be used in that way.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 21:52 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> although they didn't originally intend for it to be used in that way.

That's why it's buggy, then ...

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 27, 2022 19:38 UTC (Wed) by rjones (subscriber, #159862) [Link]

> So on trademarks, we accept that a sw license doesn't license the trademark. With patents, it seems like an un-solved problem so far. The clause at issue seems harmless to me on plain reading – "this license licenses the software, and just that" which almost shouldn't need to be said, right?

Trademarks, patents, and copyrights get lumped together as "IP", but they really are entirely different bodies of law. There is no real connection between any of them. Might as well lump tort law in with patent and copyright law for all the sense it makes on a technical level.

A copyright license only covers copyright. There is no trademark or patent licenses implied in one, although a patent or trademark license may be implied in how it's distributed or the language in other places. Like if somebody puts GPLv2 code out on the internet and says "Hey, free to use, do whatever you want with it" in their press releases, then goes out and sues you for using it on patent grounds.. the court is unlikely to view that favorably. (That doesn't mean they will have no chance of winning, though.)

The whole thing is a mess. Software patents (or business patents, etc) should of never existed. None of it should of ever existed. Just the result of clever lawyers and dumb judges working for massive corporations in order to screw over anybody that might want to compete with them.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 15:53 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (20 responses)

Reading and re-reading this clause, I don’t see where is the problem, it only affirms the document is not a patent licensing, it does not preclude patent licensing via another document.

Unless someone @rh wants to argue some software licenses imply patent granting !

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 16:01 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (18 responses)

The problem is that the software - to be foss - must be offered by the licensor free of restrictions INCLUDING PATENTS. If it included a clause whereby the copyright licensor agreed not to enforce patent rights against the software, then that would be fine.

If the law recognised that software is not patentable subject matter, then that would be perfect.

But I think it's the lack of any attempt to address the patent elephant in the room, that is the problem as Fedora sees it.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 16:07 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

Thanks, much clearer than the explanation in the original message !

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 16:16 UTC (Mon) by artefact (guest, #154379) [Link] (16 responses)

Isn't that also the case for GPLv2-only software? Why the double standard?

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 18:35 UTC (Mon) by developer122 (guest, #152928) [Link] (1 responses)

That is an interesting legal question. How would it be any different to say "we're explicitly not dealing with this" instead of saying nothing at all?

I've seen lots of hand-wavy arguments over whether the GPLv2 has an *implied* patent grant, but afaik that's never been put to the test.

At least if a licence explicitly says "this isn't a grant of patent rights, look elsewhere for any grants that may be needed" then there's at least some legal certainty, no? Unless the pervading wisdom is just "we're going to assume an imaginary grant exists (in licences that say nothing) until challenged, and then argue in court that we've been acting in good faith" which seems dumb imo. (but also seems to be the case with most licences that aren't the GPLv3)

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 22:45 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> How would it be any different to say "we're explicitly not dealing with this" instead of saying nothing at all?

The first rule of jurisprudence: nothing is absolute. Everything is made by made people, laws, agreements, court decisions, etc.

That's why we have such elaborate and complex system in place.

And this also why simply not talking about patents is very different from explicitly saying “patents are excluded”.

Given the fact that for a long time quite reasonable people, even people with some law degrees, believed that software simple couldn't be covered by patents it's easy to treat simple omission as “implied license”: yes, this agreement doesn't mention patents at all, but it's obvious they were supposed to be included, just someone saved few lines.

Heck, Google and Bing are operating on such “implied licenses”! Granted, these have nothing to do with patents, but as you can see “implied licenses” are not myth, they can be used to make billions, literally.

On the other hand explicit language clearly denies such possibility: it's pretty hard to say you have “implied license” when copyright text clearly says you are not entitled to get one.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 18:42 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (13 responses)

The GPL v2 explicitly addresses patents ...

> Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

That's basically the requirement - to be Free Software, you have to pass on *all* the rights you have, patents and all.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 19:05 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

To follow up myself, the GPL makes it impossible to distribute patent encumbered software because the requirement to licence it "for all or none" means that if you don't provide a patent licence, the software cannot be used by ANY downstream :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 4:16 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (11 responses)

It is usually preferable to quote the main body of the license rather than the preamble. The preamble may have legal effect in some jurisdictions, but probably only in cases where the main body is unclear or ambiguous. Here's the portion of the main body (of the GPL2) that deals with patents:

> 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
> distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
> License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
> may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
> license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
> all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
> the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
> refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
>
> [snip]
>
> 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
> certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
> original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
> may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
> those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
> countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
> the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

Oddly, there does not appear to be anything in the main body of GPL2 which explicitly states that the licensor grants a patent license to the licensee. Seeing as they fixed this in GPL3 (i.e. GPL3 does contain such language), I'm inclined to view it as an error or omission in GPL2, rather than the FSF taking the position that the somewhat vague language in the preamble actually grants a patent license all by itself.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 7:13 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (10 responses)

Note, though, that Section 7 effectively says "if you can't pass on your patent rights, you can't pass on the program".

So a patent licence is extremely clearly implied ... any patent suit by a distributor would instantly place the distributor in breach of the GPL. (And patent suits from 3rd parties cannot be addressed in any agreement, sadly.)

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 7:25 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (7 responses)

No, section 7 says that, if *someone else's* patent rights prohibit you from liberally licensing the software, then you can't use that as a "get out of GPL free card." There are two additional paragraphs that I cut which reiterate that this is what the license would logically do anyway, and that the entire section is included "to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License." In context, it reads as a "yes, you really do need to comply with the license, even if doing so is hard" clause (sometimes called a "hell or high water clause"), rather than an actual patent license.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 9:09 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (6 responses)

Yup.

But let's take a hypothetical upstream with patent rights. They distribute the program under GPL, and as the patent owner, what happens to the patent rights? Either they distribute it WITH a patent licence, enabling downstream to share it onwards, or they distribute it WITHOUT a patent licence, in which case the GPL is invalid.

So much so, that I suspect a Judge would rule that - by claiming the software was GPL - they had automatically granted a patent licence with it, intentional or not.

Clause 7 is aimed at 3rd-parties - but it has the side effect of blocking distributors from asserting patents against software they distribute.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 17:37 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (4 responses)

> or they distribute it WITHOUT a patent licence, in which case the GPL is invalid.

While I agree that this defeats the spirit of the GPL, I fear that (version 2 of) the GPL doesn't actually say that.

Remember, the original copyright or patent holder cannot violate (and is not bound by) their own license. So you can't apply section 7 to the actual patent owner, just to downstream reusers who are bound by patent licenses or settlements. This is why GPL3 had to add an explicit patent license.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 19:30 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

Very true ... BUT.

If I give you some software under the GPL, I am giving you the right to use and pass that software on. If I have submarine patents and don't grant you a licence, the GPL itself says you can't pass it on.

Cue a massive legal mess about misrepresentation, passing off, estoppel, and all that crap that the licensOR is responsible for. Any copyright holder distributing their code that way is setting themselves up for a nasty legal battle, should downstream decide to fight.

Imho, if upstream knowingly pull a stunt like that, the GPL isn't worth the paper it's written on, and upstream are firmly on the hook for misrepresentation, deceit and entrapment.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 21:12 UTC (Tue) by Vipketsh (guest, #134480) [Link] (2 responses)

> I have submarine patents

Out of curiosity, why is the author's patents special in this context ? What if the code in question implements somebody else's patent (possibly unknowingly) ?

I think this could be a slippery slope. If it goes in the direction "the code is implied to be fully patent free" does that put responsibility on the author to do due diligence, which is a lot of annoying (legal) work ? Does the author get to be a defendant in a patent case against a user ? That is not an aspiring prospect, to say the least.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 21:22 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

If you knowingly infringe someone else's patent, under US law they can get enhanced damages (compared to unknowing infringement). As a result, it is fairly common for lawyers to advise software engineers to refrain from researching or commenting on specific individual software patents. A license which explicitly promises such research is not a license that the industry is likely to accept.

(Of course, you can put whatever licensing terms you want in your private hobby project. Just don't expect BigTech to use it.)

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 27, 2022 11:08 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> > I have submarine patents

> Out of curiosity, why is the author's patents special in this context ? What if the code in question implements somebody else's patent (possibly unknowingly) ?

Because it's evidence (proof?) of bad faith on my part.

If I give you MY GPL code (which contains a promise that you can share it), but don't give you MY patents (which you NEED to be able to share it), then the GPL is essentially worthless. I've given you code which you can't legally use or share, and told you it's GPL. That is basically deception, entrapment, call it what you will, but it's downright nasty.

If, on the other hand, I don't know about someone else's patents (or even if I do but I don't have a licence), then that doesn't stop you sharing all your rights with someone else. Out of decency I should tell you about the patents if I know, but that's not evidence of anything.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 23:02 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

So much so, that I suspect a Judge would rule that - by claiming the software was GPL - they had automatically granted a patent licence with it, intentional or not.

Sure, but there's a big practical difference between concluding something is a logical interpretation of the license and having it spelled out explicitly. To quote The Zen of Python, explicit is better than implicit. If you want to be sure the original author has actually licensed their patents, say it clearly in the license. If you depend on the judge interpreting things the same way you do, you may be disappointed.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Aug 2, 2022 11:13 UTC (Tue) by patrakov (subscriber, #97174) [Link] (1 responses)

What if I don't have (and, in my country, don't need) these patent rights, but am aware of third parties claiming to hold applicable patents elsewhere?

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Aug 2, 2022 12:37 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

This (as with all legal things) becomes a "talk to your lawyer, get their advice" situation. Because the GPLv2 does not include a patent licensing clause (the GPLv3 does), it comes down to arguing about the exact intent behind "The act of running the Program is not restricted" from clause 0, and the distribution rights under clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7. One common interpretation is that you, as the person providing a copy of the code, do not apply restrictions yourself, nor are you restricted from distributing via section 7 since the patents don't apply in your country; someone in a region where the patents do apply may find themselves unable to distribute under section 7 because of the patent terms.

Incidentally, this sort of thing is why not talking enough about patents is preferable to a lawyer to explicitly disclaiming anything to do with patents; in the event someone launches a patent case against a downstream distributor or user, a lawyer can look at the text of the GPLv2 and argue about the licensor's intent, whereas with CC0's explicit patent disclaimer, the lawyer has nothing to lean upon.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 20:25 UTC (Mon) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

The problem here is it's undefined behaviour. In C that might just make your nuclear reactor or chemical factory explode, but in legal documents that's how the plant's operator gets to ignore both the early warning signs of failure and its long-term consequences to the town down the road in the name of easy profit.

Terse licenses like these might give good feelies to people who don't want to read EULAs, in which case one should just use the GPL - it explicitly says (unfortunately late into the document) your users don't have to read it. But not having a baseline of fixating patent licensing also does nothing to vaccinate against patent trolling, which we collectively agreed some 20 years ago was a blight on both commercial and hobby software.

You don't want to half-ass incantations used to bind literal demons (cf. Oracle/Amazon), and maybe RedHat deserves a little more credit for doing the job properly here.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 16:47 UTC (Mon) by azure (guest, #112903) [Link] (12 responses)

With CC0 out, is there an accepted license that doesn't require attribution or reproduciton of the copyright notice?

That's what I've always used CC0 for. Small libraries of self-contained functions or tutorial examples where I want people to be able to copy, paste, and forget where they ever got it from.

MIT and the GNU all-permissive license both require you to bring the copyright notice along, so this seems to leave a gap.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 16:57 UTC (Mon) by danpb (subscriber, #4831) [Link] (11 responses)

In the reply in the original thread:

https://lwn.net/ml/fedora-legal/CAC1cPGyCRfTNE-Ff57rCfOf+...

Richard points to SPDX:MIT-0 (MIT No Attribution) as a viable alternative for this purpose. There's also SPDX:0BSD (Zero-Clause BSD) which achieves a similar goal.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 17:29 UTC (Mon) by martin.langhoff (guest, #61417) [Link] (10 responses)

And somehow, there's an implication that by licensing the code with a minimalistic license like BSD, you're also licensing _other things_?

The BSD license doesn't say "you also get a license to the associated trademarks", nor "you also get a license to the associated patents".

Not trying to be difficult here, but pushing towards making explicit what the threshold issue is. Clarity matters, because I don't think disallowing CC0 in a distro speaks to the heart of the matter.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 18:46 UTC (Mon) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (4 responses)

I am not a lawyer so the following is at best speculative fiction:

The difference comes down to what is 'reserved' for the original writer.

The 0BSD and MIT-0 say that the software can be used for any purpose:
https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted."
https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT-0 "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so. "

The Creative Commons zero puts in a lot of verbiage saying the user could use it for any purpose but then removes that with

"4. a. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. "

It is this lack of 'license/waive' which can in current reading by various lawyers following current court cases and such which affects the upper sections which say a downstream user can use it for any purpose. So any user of 'CC/0' code would need to work with the original writer to see if there were outstanding patents, trademark licenses, or similar restrictions which stop the usage. Depending on those further licenses the CC0 could be completely overridden.

== End speculative fiction where I play at knowing more than a Day's Inn stay on law.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 19:18 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

> "4. a. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. "

Hmmm ... it looks like that is the problem then - explicitly NOT giving a patent grant is damning. Explicitly not giving a trademark licence makes it look like this has been written by an armchair lawyer.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 15:01 UTC (Tue) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link] (2 responses)

True, this could be the problem.

The MirOS Licence has an explicit permission on use combined with no such wording, and I intend that to be an implicit patent licence (I’d rather not have added an explicit one because software patents are illegal).

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 15:31 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Stick a clause like "by distributing this software you agree that it contains no patent-eligible material".

Okay, any armchair lawyer stuff could be dangerous, but that would take your software firmly out of the net.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 15:58 UTC (Tue) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link]

Ugh, no… for multiple reasons, but the “no armchair lawyering” is probably the best one, and the one OSI looks at these days.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 22:58 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> Not trying to be difficult here, but pushing towards making explicit what the threshold issue is.

There's a contradition in your words right there. First part is incompatible with second.

> Clarity matters, because I don't think disallowing CC0 in a distro speaks to the heart of the matter.

It does, because you, apparently, don't understand (or maybe just don't want to understand) how law works.

Law is squishy. All these texts, licenses, and other things don't give you straight answers and are not supposed to give straight answers in 100% of cases. BY DESIGN! It's not a mistake of people who created them! You can read more here, e.g.

That's why English phrase “I just want clarity” is interpreted as “I want to be difficult” by lawyers.

> The BSD license doesn't say "you also get a license to the associated trademarks", nor "you also get a license to the associated patents".

And that's precisely what opens up the possibility of talks about “implied license”.

Precisely because license says nothing about these things you may argue these were supposed to be passed along, too.

But if you say these are not covered by license then “implied license” is no longer plausible.

It's as simple as that.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 27, 2022 16:16 UTC (Wed) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link] (3 responses)

See my colleague Scott Peterson's article on the patent license in the MIT license:
https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 29, 2022 22:11 UTC (Fri) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link] (2 responses)

Fascinating article. I would love to see this tested in a court.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Aug 4, 2022 8:27 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] (1 responses)

You'd think there would be a lot of money in it for a patent troll who had received legal advice that they were likely to prevail in such a lawsuit. So perhaps the fact that it hasn't happened yet is indicative...

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Aug 4, 2022 9:01 UTC (Thu) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link]

Such repute would be certainly better than nothing.

What to do with embedded CC0-1.0 files (e.g., AppStream metadata)?

Posted Jul 25, 2022 17:30 UTC (Mon) by hosiet (subscriber, #106062) [Link] (1 responses)

A large amount of AppStream XML metadata files have the following declaration:

<metadata_license>CC0-1.0</metadata_license>

Just did a search in Debian at https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%3Cmetadata_licens... , and it yields 408 results, including libreoffice, gnome-*, network-manager-*, etc.

Now I wonder what would Fedora do with them.

What to do with embedded CC0-1.0 files (e.g., AppStream metadata)?

Posted Jul 25, 2022 17:33 UTC (Mon) by hosiet (subscriber, #106062) [Link]

Answering myself: looks like the proposed restriction would only affect codes, not contents. In this case the metadata will not be affected.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 20:17 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (2 responses)

Was this decision motivated by some existing project using CC0 for which the lack of a patent license is proving problematic, or was this done without any particular software in mind?

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 23:53 UTC (Mon) by WolfWings (subscriber, #56790) [Link]

Basically FOSS as a community at the distro level taking a stance of "If patents aren't included then we're not including the package." to grossly over-simplify.

And no there was no "flag day" this became a thing just stronger and stronger refusal to touch anything unless patents are included too, due to so many huge companies with more money than $deity inflicting lawsuit after lawsuit Because They Can and so often using patents as their shillelagh.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 27, 2022 1:13 UTC (Wed) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]

This was done without any particular software in mind.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 20:51 UTC (Mon) by jengelh (guest, #33263) [Link]

That'll be fun going after one's own CC0 material (let alone that of others) and re-tag it as WTFPL2.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 4:54 UTC (Tue) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (2 responses)

jxself created the Worldwide Public Domain Dedication (WPDD), which includes patent rights.

https://jxself.org/wpdd.shtml

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 30, 2022 23:40 UTC (Sat) by sammythesnake (guest, #17693) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm curious why that proposed not-quite-licence uses terms like "non-transferable" and "non-sublicensable" with respect to rights granted through it. Surely granting those rights as transferable and sublicensable would better fit the declared purpose...?

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 31, 2022 12:32 UTC (Sun) by jxself (guest, #63302) [Link]

This isn't unique to the WPDD but is actually from CC0: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode "...Affirmer hereby grants to each affected person a royalty-free, non transferable, non sublicensable..."

So your questions seems more about why it was made non transferable in CC0.

I don't know that CC has explicitly stated why but my understanding is that, probably not surprisingly, not everything is or can be made transferable in all areas of the world.

This should not be conflated to mean that further sharing of a Work means that someone doesn't get a license, as anyone receiving a copy of the Work would still receive a license directly from the Affirmer, at least to the extent that they're an "affected person."

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 7:04 UTC (Tue) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103) [Link] (4 responses)

So, one prominent piece of code under CC0 is the SipHash reference implementation. It's embedded in tons of projects. Including in one I myself care for: systemd. I understand it would suffice switching to a differently licensed implementation, right? Anyone knows one with a qualifying Open Source license (in C)?

Lennart

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 9:14 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

How old is the reference implementation?

Yes I know it would be a pain getting Fedora to introduce a "patent expired" exemption, but if that's the pain point, any code over (is it) 17 years old will be okay.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 16:29 UTC (Tue) by jwilk (subscriber, #63328) [Link] (2 responses)

It's from 2012.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 16:54 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Ouch. Unless we can trace the provenance any earlier, that's 7 years until any alleged patents expire.

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 18:26 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

You're not going to be able to trace provenance back further. Jean-Philippe Aumasson and DJB came up with SipHash in 2012, the CC0 code is their reference implementation. Obviously Aumasson and DJB aren't going to have patented this, but the nature of patents means that's not necessarily enough.

On the other hand, it's an ARX algorithm, this is not rocket surgery, it seems to me that if you insist on having a C implementation you could just write one, fulfilling the same API as the reference implementation, and acknowledge the algorithm's inventors then write BSD-0 or whatever at the top.

I think this meets the common good requirement (like the Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Opus codecs) so that BSD-0 is appropriate even for someone like me who thinks the GPL is generally better.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 26, 2022 9:21 UTC (Tue) by runekock (subscriber, #50229) [Link] (4 responses)

Am I right in thinking, that I can take someone else's CC0 code, add a patent grant for my own patents (none), and then it would satisfy Fedora's requirements?

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 27, 2022 1:14 UTC (Wed) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't think so, if I understand you correctly. You'd have to convince the original author of the CC0'd code to grant a patent license of some adequate sort.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 27, 2022 5:50 UTC (Wed) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

CC0 code is not subject to copyright protection. There is nothing (besides common decency) stopping me from taking some CC0 code, changing it just enough for copyright to attach (e.g. minor stylistic refactoring, mass variable renaming, etc.), and then slapping my own copyright notice and license on it, and completely removing the CC0 notice altogether. The law (at least in most jurisdictions) doesn't consider that to be infringing, because the previous author has waived all of their exclusive rights in the existing code (although, in some jurisdictions, there might be issues relating to moral rights). Seeing as Fedora can't reasonably be expected to know the full provenance and history of every line of code they distribute, I don't see how they can prevent people from doing something like that.

(Of course, Fedora also can't necessarily stop people from outright *lying* about the copyright license, but at least in that case they respond when someone sends them a DMCA notice or cease & desist letter. With CC0, there's no underlying infringement, so nobody is ever going to tell them!)

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 28, 2022 10:44 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (1 responses)

Right, but this doesn't make any sense because of the different nature of copyright and patents. If you have written some code (and not plagiarized) then you are the copyright owner and a licence from you is sufficient. But any unrelated person, who might never have seen the code in question, can assert patent claims. Perhaps the very broad, poor quality software patents we worried about a decade ago have been neutered by court decisions, but still in principle the code's author and the holders of software patents need have no relationship. So I don't see why Fedora is insisting on a patent licence or waiver from the original author. If they don't hold any software patents and haven't even applied for one, then there is nothing to grant anyhow. And even if they did add a clause to the licence, that would do nothing to lower the risk of patent lawsuits in practice, since that risk comes from third parties.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 31, 2022 8:15 UTC (Sun) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

To be fair, there have been credible reports[1] of people using older CC licenses to perform an obscure type of copy*left* trolling. This particular attack is not applicable to any version of CC0 for several different reasons, but the notion that someone will offer intentionally limited terms with the aim of fooling the recipients into violating them is not entirely unfounded.

[1]: https://archive.ph/YWTVT

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 28, 2022 10:55 UTC (Thu) by bpearlmutter (subscriber, #14693) [Link] (3 responses)

How does this differ from BSD?

$ egrep --count -i patent /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD 
0

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 28, 2022 11:55 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

> How does this differ from BSD?

Not explicitly mentioning patents != explicitly not licensing patents

https://lwn.net/Articles/902667/

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 29, 2022 0:01 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Isn't BSD very similar to MIT?

As the linked article by Scott Peterson says, by explicitly granting the right to "use the software WITHOUT RESTRICTION", the licensor is saying "you don't need a patent licence from me".

Yes the licensor can't be held to the terms of the licence over their own software, but equally they can't change the terms for the licensee without good reason. And suing downstream would be a pretty blatant renege on "without restriction".

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 29, 2022 10:42 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> As the linked article by Scott Peterson says, by explicitly granting the right to "use the software WITHOUT RESTRICTION", the licensor is saying "you don't need a patent licence from me".

Indeed. Without actual court test this legal theory, like any legal theory, would stay purely theoretical, but it's very plausible theory and chances are high that it will hold in court.

This is completely different from explicit refusal to grant you patent license along with the code.

Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 31, 2022 18:22 UTC (Sun) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link]

"This document" is the copyright license. It does not address trademarks or patents, those would be licensed in a separate document. It does not forbid you from having a license for them.

Concerns about developers copying code from StackOverflow (Was: Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code)

Posted Aug 1, 2022 5:46 UTC (Mon) by medicalwei (subscriber, #103028) [Link]

Now I have a concern that, developers could copy source code from StackOverflow during development, which license is CC-BY (ranging from 2.5 to 4.0). And in which, CC-BY 4.0 specified:

§2.b.2 Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.

This could mean that developers need to be wary when copying source code from such site.