Follow

your periodic reminder that you shouldn't use CC0 for software source code: « Fedora sours on Creative Commons 'No Rights Reserved' license » theregister.com/2022/07/25/fed via @TheRegisterBot

· · Web · 3 · 11 · 8

@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 lists.apache.org/list?legal-di

@zacchiro @TheRegisterBot Of course I agree that patent grants are important, but e.g. reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrigh 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: github.com/fsfe/reuse-docs/iss

unprofessional language in a license 

@zacchiro

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)
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!