Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

Posted Jul 25, 2022 15:48 UTC (Mon) by martin.langhoff (guest, #61417)
Parent article: Fedora to disallow CC0-licensed code

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.