Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider dual licensing aside of CC0 #22

Open
mochaaP opened this issue Mar 13, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Consider dual licensing aside of CC0 #22

mochaaP opened this issue Mar 13, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@mochaaP
Copy link

mochaaP commented Mar 13, 2024

tl;dr: CC0 has a No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. clause that cannot be considered FOSS.

Issue description

I'd like to package this for Fedora, but we had a change regarding CC0 in 2022: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/

I would appreciate it if you could relicense it under an OSI-approved license (MIT, 0BSD, The Unlicense, Apache-2.0, etc.) at your favor.

@mochaaP
Copy link
Author

mochaaP commented Mar 13, 2024

cc'ing @trutest here for clarification (probably not a hard requirement since it's a one-line deletion, but anyway)

@dhess
Copy link
Owner

dhess commented Mar 20, 2024

Hi, thanks for your interest in this project.

Just to clarify my intentions when I published c-ringbuf, it's not meant to be packaged as such — as stated in the README, I encourage anyone who wants to use it to simply copy-paste it into their project and then modify it as needed. Despite the unexpected popularity of this repo, I haven't changed my mind about this; therefore, I don't want the choice of a license (or lack thereof) to be driven by packaging concerns.

That said, I agree that the patent clause isn't ideal (notwithstanding that I neither own nor am a party to any patents). Maybe I'd have chosen 0BSD had I been aware of it when I wrote c-ringbuf.

IANAL, but I do have trouble reconciling my relicensing a work that I've already published under CC0, which states that the original owner "irrevocably" relinquishes their rights, but I suppose nobody's going to actually object.

@mochaaP
Copy link
Author

mochaaP commented Mar 21, 2024

"irrevocably" only stands for the current version that's licensed under CC0. You are free to license further versions under a new license since you are the original copyright holder.

@mochaaP
Copy link
Author

mochaaP commented Mar 21, 2024

I don't want the choice of a license (or lack thereof) to be driven by packaging concerns.

Just to mention why I raised this: This project was used by kitty, and we have to ensure all dependencies are actually allowed to be packaged.

Thank you for considering this!

@dhess dhess self-assigned this Mar 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants