Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
On Nov 07, 2017, at 02:27 PM, Shahar Or wrote: Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0 licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me to re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0. What do you mean by "Modifying the stock CC0"? Did they? I presume he was referring to my reply which suggested that if you use CC0, to address patents in some manner. CC0 is in prevalent use so you're probably fine either way, but just be aware that there is uncertainty (or at least disagreement) as to whether CC0's fallback license is consistent with the Open Source Definition (OSD) as defined by OSI. The reason is that it essentially says "no patent grant for you!" which none of the permissives (e.g., ISC) say. To the contrary, licenses like ISC arguably imply a patent license, but this is fully untested. For an artwork asset, it doesn't really matter. For code and contributors, it "could" matter if someone has a patent. My overarching suggestion remains to address CC0's patent clause in *some* manner whether by a contributor agreement, dual-licensing, or amendment and probably in that order of decreasing favor. And what do you mean by "they won’t use your code anyway"? They intend to use it as a dependency, via package management (Node.js/NPM) and specifically include it in their web frontend via bundling (Webpack, probably). To me, their request makes absolutely no sense unless they distribute that frontend code independently of npm. They're basically asking to not have to acknowledge your contribution as having come from you. They're certainly able to do that and not an uncommon desire, but it seems very lame to me to ask that of an ISC code. It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets under one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in general and in this case, it makes even more sense given that shields appears to programmatically makes badges in svg. Except they are extending their desire to non-bundled *dependencies*, which is just bizarre. It's like wanting GPL virality sans copyright ... copyfarleft? The patent provision is meaningless if you don’t own any patents used by your code. It's not necessarily meaningless to contributors and forks and future you. Cheers! Sean ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0 licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me to re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0. What do you mean by "Modifying the stock CC0"? Did they? And what do you mean by "they won’t use your code anyway"? They intend to use it as a dependency, via package management (Node.js/NPM) and specifically include it in their web frontend via bundling (Webpack, probably). On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:05 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Oops, hit send by accident. CC0 is also accepted as GPL compatible and is > a free software license (as judged by the FSF). > > > > It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets > under one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in > general and in this case, it makes even more sense given that shields > appears to programmatically makes badges in svg. I guess they want to be > sure that all of the vectorized images that are in the repo are CC0 to try > to avoid issues. The line between code and art asset are blurrier for this > project than most. > > > > If it bothers you a lot then don’t contribute to the project but there > doesn’t seem to be anything sinister about the request. > > > > The patent provision is meaningless if you don’t own any patents used by > your code. Modifying the stock CC0 probably means they won’t use your code > anyway so either comply with the request or not. You aren’t obligated to > contribute anything but neither are they obligated to change policy. > > > > Regards, > > > > Nigel > > > > *From: *Nigel Tzeng > *Date: *Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM > > > *To: *License Discuss > *Subject: *Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open > source project CC0 > > > > CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal > Source Code Policy. > > > > https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction > > https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md > > > > > > *From: *License-discuss on > behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison > *Reply-To: *License Discuss > *Date: *Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM > *To: *License Discuss > *Subject: *Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open > source project CC0 > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or > wrote: > > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine > to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. > > > > That’s a reasonable concern, imho. > > > > > https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 > > > > Is there good reason for this request, at all? > > > > There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively > licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. > > > > > I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is > CC0 licensed? > > > > If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), > there’d be an issue. > > > > > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. > > > > With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a > patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a > permissive is an option too. > > Cheers! > > Sean > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Oops, hit send by accident. CC0 is also accepted as GPL compatible and is a free software license (as judged by the FSF). It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets under one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in general and in this case, it makes even more sense given that shields appears to programmatically makes badges in svg. I guess they want to be sure that all of the vectorized images that are in the repo are CC0 to try to avoid issues. The line between code and art asset are blurrier for this project than most. If it bothers you a lot then don’t contribute to the project but there doesn’t seem to be anything sinister about the request. The patent provision is meaningless if you don’t own any patents used by your code. Modifying the stock CC0 probably means they won’t use your code anyway so either comply with the request or not. You aren’t obligated to contribute anything but neither are they obligated to change policy. Regards, Nigel From: Nigel Tzeng Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM To: License Discuss Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0 CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy. https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss on behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison Reply-To: License Discuss Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM To: License Discuss Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0 On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or mailto:mightyiamprese...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue. When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too. Cheers! Sean ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy. https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss on behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison Reply-To: License Discuss Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM To: License Discuss Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0 On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or mailto:mightyiamprese...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue. When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too. Cheers! Sean ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Sorry, this isn’t an issue. Q. Does using CC0 affect my ability to disclaim warranties? A. No. CC0 explicitly disclaims "representations or warranties of any kind" (see 4(b)). This is not affected by CC0's abandonment of all copyright-related rights to the extent legally possible. Disposing of an asset (whether or not gratis) often involves a statement by the prior owner as to the state of the asset disposed of such that the owner has no responsibility/liability for things that may go wrong once the asset is no longer theirs. As with a quit claim used with real property, with CC0 a copyright holder abandons or quits their interest without any further obligation, including without warranty. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#Does_using_CC0_affect_my_ability_to_disclaim_warranties.3F License Text: 4.b Affirmer offers the Work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including without limitation warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non infringement, or the absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the present or absence of errors, whether or not discoverable, all to the greatest extent permissible under applicable law. On 11/7/17, 12:20 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of David Woolley" wrote: On 07/11/17 17:09, Shahar Or wrote: > Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not > otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. Dual licensing is pointless, as CC0 is always more permissive, so there is really no point in anyone using the alternative licence. Please request the person making this request to indemnify you against all actions for damages as a result of using the software, and ensure they have the resources to back that indemnity. The reason for not using CC0 is that open source licences generally always include a waiver of warranty as part of the conditions of the licence. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or wrote: > > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to > CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. > https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 > > Is there good reason for this request, at all? There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. > I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is > CC0 licensed? If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue. > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too. Cheers! Sean ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
On 07/11/17 17:09, Shahar Or wrote: Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. Dual licensing is pointless, as CC0 is always more permissive, so there is really no point in anyone using the alternative licence. Please request the person making this request to indemnify you against all actions for damages as a result of using the software, and ensure they have the resources to back that indemnity. The reason for not using CC0 is that open source licences generally always include a waiver of warranty as part of the conditions of the licence. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. Help? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss