your periodic reminder that you shouldn't use CC0 for software source code: « Fedora sours on Creative Commons 'No Rights Reserved' license » https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/25/fedora_sours_on_creative_commons/ via @TheRegisterBot
@zacchiro @TheRegisterBot Of course I agree that patent grants are important, but e.g. https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable recommends `CC0-1.0` for probably-uncopyrightable files like `.gitignore` or `setup.py`, which may strictly speaking be source code. I like this because I don’t want to endorse a maximalist understanding of what is copyrightable. I’d be interested in @fsfe’s thoughts on this.
@LiberalArtist @TheRegisterBot @fsfe I wasn't aware of this recommendation and I think it should be rectified.
@zacchiro @LiberalArtist @TheRegisterBot @fsfe We have it on our radar but are still discussing the best alternative. Please feel free to participate: https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-docs/issues/62
unprofessional language in a license
and now I'm here wondering whether the WTFPL could be interpreted as having an implicit patent waiver (you can't do what the * you want if you have restricted by patents), and thus having been the best choice for this usecase all this time :D
(yes, an *explicit* patent waiver would be better, I know. but then, anybody who has the rights to a patent is not going to get anywhere close to the WTFPL anyway, I expect)
@zacchiro @neil
... and yet people one would expect to know better are arguing it's no different to MIT/BSD over on the Apache Legal list https://lists.apache.org/list?legal-discuss@apache.org:2022-7