You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Craig L Russell (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2022/07/26 21:15:00 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17571624#comment-17571624 ]
Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-617:
---------------------------------------
Based on my current understanding of CC0 as prohibiting patent licensing, I would like us to categorize CC0 as Category X.
> Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-617
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
> Priority: Major
>
> See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
> {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content
> (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
> We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no
> longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
> have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not
> clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
> packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a
> process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
> through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted to
> note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
> change.
> The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has
> been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
> licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
> clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are
> waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
> document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from a
> FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
> licenses have similar clauses.
> A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
> contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
> official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
> must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
> prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
> license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
> can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
> distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for non-software
> material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
> Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
And to go back to CC0 ... the statement doesn't say "no patent license may
be granted" -- it says "no patent licenses are implied". The ALv2 makes an
explicit grant in a specific situation, but that doesn't interfere with
CC0's language. CC0 is making a comment, not a restriction.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 4:33 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope... clause 3 only covers *contributions* made by a patent holder. It
> is not a generalized patent grant. As Sean notes, there are no statements
> made on bundled software.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 9:05 AM Simon Phipps <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The difference that commentators are missing here is that BSD MIT etc
>> simply omit any explanation of what they are licensing, whereas CC0 (and
>> all CC licenses) expressly disclaim any potential for patent licenses. So
>> CC0 materials licensed outbound under ALv2 have a conflict, since clause 3
>> of ALv2 grants a patent license while CC0 expressly denies a patent
>> license.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:55 PM Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not a lawyer, just a reader here. It seems that:
>>>
>>> 1/ None of the licenses prohibit patents - wrong word
>>> 2/ ALv2 conveys patent license
>>> 3/ CC0 does not, but neither do 'compatible' licenses like MIT, BSD
>>> 4/ CC0 is probably going to pertain to content; is content 'patentable'?
>>>
>>> Based on 3, I don't see why it would be treated differently from MIT,
>>> BSD licenses over patent language when included in otherwise ALv2-licensed
>>> projects. The patent rights for those covered elements do not convey, but
>>> those elements are not ALv2-licensed and we have never claimed that
>>> elements included under other licenses are relicensed, simply that we
>>> tolerate their inclusion in the bundle with notices.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:57 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clause 3 is for the ALv2 content provided under license. Distributions
>>>> of content typically involve items under a multitude of licenses, and the
>>>> ALv2 is simply for the overall distribution. It is certainly possible to
>>>> receive a distribution of content under ALv2 without attendant patent
>>>> licenses. Historically, we have been agnostic to the intersection of
>>>> trademarks and patents, with regards to the copyright license provided by
>>>> ALv2.
>>>>
>>>> Content provided under BSD, MIT, etc, that might get bundled into a
>>>> distribution with ALv2 code do not convey patent licenses. CC0 is nothing
>>>> special in this regard. That (say) BSD remains silent on the issue does not
>>>> suddenly turn the BSD license into a patent license.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:26 AM Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that CC0 should be considered category X. Software licensed
>>>>> inbound under CC0 expressly excludes any grant of a license to patents the
>>>>> code infringes, so Apache lacks sufficient rights to then license to
>>>>> patents under clause 3 of the Apache License on any outbound code.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:15 PM Craig L Russell (Jira) <
>>>>> jira@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17571624#comment-17571624
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-617:
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on my current understanding of CC0 as prohibiting patent
>>>>>> licensing, I would like us to categorize CC0 as Category X.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as
>>>>>> well?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Key: LEGAL-617
>>>>>> > URL:
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
>>>>>> > Project: Legal Discuss
>>>>>> > Issue Type: Task
>>>>>> > Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
>>>>>> > Priority: Major
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > See
>>>>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
>>>>>> > {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code
>>>>>> and content
>>>>>> > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
>>>>>> > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> > longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
>>>>>> > have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> > clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
>>>>>> > packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> > process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
>>>>>> > through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> > note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
>>>>>> > change.
>>>>>> > The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> > been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
>>>>>> > licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
>>>>>> > clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> > waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> > document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic
>>>>>> from a
>>>>>> > FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
>>>>>> > licenses have similar clauses.
>>>>>> > A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
>>>>>> > contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
>>>>>> > official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
>>>>>> > must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
>>>>>> > prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
>>>>>> > license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
>>>>>> > can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
>>>>>> > distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for
>>>>>> non-software
>>>>>> > material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
>>>>>> > Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
>>>>>> > {quote}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Nope... clause 3 only covers *contributions* made by a patent holder. It is
not a generalized patent grant. As Sean notes, there are no statements made
on bundled software.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 9:05 AM Simon Phipps <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> The difference that commentators are missing here is that BSD MIT etc
> simply omit any explanation of what they are licensing, whereas CC0 (and
> all CC licenses) expressly disclaim any potential for patent licenses. So
> CC0 materials licensed outbound under ALv2 have a conflict, since clause 3
> of ALv2 grants a patent license while CC0 expressly denies a patent
> license.
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:55 PM Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not a lawyer, just a reader here. It seems that:
>>
>> 1/ None of the licenses prohibit patents - wrong word
>> 2/ ALv2 conveys patent license
>> 3/ CC0 does not, but neither do 'compatible' licenses like MIT, BSD
>> 4/ CC0 is probably going to pertain to content; is content 'patentable'?
>>
>> Based on 3, I don't see why it would be treated differently from MIT, BSD
>> licenses over patent language when included in otherwise ALv2-licensed
>> projects. The patent rights for those covered elements do not convey, but
>> those elements are not ALv2-licensed and we have never claimed that
>> elements included under other licenses are relicensed, simply that we
>> tolerate their inclusion in the bundle with notices.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:57 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Clause 3 is for the ALv2 content provided under license. Distributions
>>> of content typically involve items under a multitude of licenses, and the
>>> ALv2 is simply for the overall distribution. It is certainly possible to
>>> receive a distribution of content under ALv2 without attendant patent
>>> licenses. Historically, we have been agnostic to the intersection of
>>> trademarks and patents, with regards to the copyright license provided by
>>> ALv2.
>>>
>>> Content provided under BSD, MIT, etc, that might get bundled into a
>>> distribution with ALv2 code do not convey patent licenses. CC0 is nothing
>>> special in this regard. That (say) BSD remains silent on the issue does not
>>> suddenly turn the BSD license into a patent license.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:26 AM Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that CC0 should be considered category X. Software licensed
>>>> inbound under CC0 expressly excludes any grant of a license to patents the
>>>> code infringes, so Apache lacks sufficient rights to then license to
>>>> patents under clause 3 of the Apache License on any outbound code.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:15 PM Craig L Russell (Jira) <
>>>> jira@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17571624#comment-17571624
>>>>> ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-617:
>>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on my current understanding of CC0 as prohibiting patent
>>>>> licensing, I would like us to categorize CC0 as Category X.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as
>>>>> well?
>>>>> >
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Key: LEGAL-617
>>>>> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
>>>>> > Project: Legal Discuss
>>>>> > Issue Type: Task
>>>>> > Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
>>>>> > Priority: Major
>>>>> >
>>>>> > See
>>>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
>>>>> > {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code
>>>>> and content
>>>>> > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
>>>>> > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no
>>>>> > longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
>>>>> > have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not
>>>>> > clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
>>>>> > packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a
>>>>> > process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
>>>>> > through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted
>>>>> to
>>>>> > note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
>>>>> > change.
>>>>> > The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has
>>>>> > been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
>>>>> > licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
>>>>> > clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are
>>>>> > waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by
>>>>> this
>>>>> > document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from
>>>>> a
>>>>> > FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
>>>>> > licenses have similar clauses.
>>>>> > A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
>>>>> > contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
>>>>> > official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
>>>>> > must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
>>>>> > prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
>>>>> > license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
>>>>> > can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
>>>>> > distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for
>>>>> non-software
>>>>> > material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
>>>>> > Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
>>>>> > {quote}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
Posted by Simon Phipps <we...@apache.org>.
The difference that commentators are missing here is that BSD MIT etc
simply omit any explanation of what they are licensing, whereas CC0 (and
all CC licenses) expressly disclaim any potential for patent licenses. So
CC0 materials licensed outbound under ALv2 have a conflict, since clause 3
of ALv2 grants a patent license while CC0 expressly denies a patent
license.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:55 PM Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not a lawyer, just a reader here. It seems that:
>
> 1/ None of the licenses prohibit patents - wrong word
> 2/ ALv2 conveys patent license
> 3/ CC0 does not, but neither do 'compatible' licenses like MIT, BSD
> 4/ CC0 is probably going to pertain to content; is content 'patentable'?
>
> Based on 3, I don't see why it would be treated differently from MIT, BSD
> licenses over patent language when included in otherwise ALv2-licensed
> projects. The patent rights for those covered elements do not convey, but
> those elements are not ALv2-licensed and we have never claimed that
> elements included under other licenses are relicensed, simply that we
> tolerate their inclusion in the bundle with notices.
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:57 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Clause 3 is for the ALv2 content provided under license. Distributions of
>> content typically involve items under a multitude of licenses, and the ALv2
>> is simply for the overall distribution. It is certainly possible to receive
>> a distribution of content under ALv2 without attendant patent licenses.
>> Historically, we have been agnostic to the intersection of trademarks and
>> patents, with regards to the copyright license provided by ALv2.
>>
>> Content provided under BSD, MIT, etc, that might get bundled into a
>> distribution with ALv2 code do not convey patent licenses. CC0 is nothing
>> special in this regard. That (say) BSD remains silent on the issue does not
>> suddenly turn the BSD license into a patent license.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:26 AM Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that CC0 should be considered category X. Software licensed
>>> inbound under CC0 expressly excludes any grant of a license to patents the
>>> code infringes, so Apache lacks sufficient rights to then license to
>>> patents under clause 3 of the Apache License on any outbound code.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:15 PM Craig L Russell (Jira) <ji...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17571624#comment-17571624
>>>> ]
>>>>
>>>> Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-617:
>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Based on my current understanding of CC0 as prohibiting patent
>>>> licensing, I would like us to categorize CC0 as Category X.
>>>>
>>>> > Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as
>>>> well?
>>>> >
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >
>>>> > Key: LEGAL-617
>>>> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
>>>> > Project: Legal Discuss
>>>> > Issue Type: Task
>>>> > Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
>>>> > Priority: Major
>>>> >
>>>> > See
>>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
>>>> > {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code
>>>> and content
>>>> > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
>>>> > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no
>>>> > longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
>>>> > have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not
>>>> > clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
>>>> > packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a
>>>> > process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
>>>> > through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted to
>>>> > note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
>>>> > change.
>>>> > The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has
>>>> > been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
>>>> > licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
>>>> > clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are
>>>> > waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
>>>> > document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from a
>>>> > FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
>>>> > licenses have similar clauses.
>>>> > A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
>>>> > contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
>>>> > official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
>>>> > must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
>>>> > prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
>>>> > license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
>>>> > can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
>>>> > distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for non-software
>>>> > material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
>>>> > Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
>>>> > {quote}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
Not a lawyer, just a reader here. It seems that:
1/ None of the licenses prohibit patents - wrong word
2/ ALv2 conveys patent license
3/ CC0 does not, but neither do 'compatible' licenses like MIT, BSD
4/ CC0 is probably going to pertain to content; is content 'patentable'?
Based on 3, I don't see why it would be treated differently from MIT, BSD
licenses over patent language when included in otherwise ALv2-licensed
projects. The patent rights for those covered elements do not convey, but
those elements are not ALv2-licensed and we have never claimed that
elements included under other licenses are relicensed, simply that we
tolerate their inclusion in the bundle with notices.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:57 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Clause 3 is for the ALv2 content provided under license. Distributions of
> content typically involve items under a multitude of licenses, and the ALv2
> is simply for the overall distribution. It is certainly possible to receive
> a distribution of content under ALv2 without attendant patent licenses.
> Historically, we have been agnostic to the intersection of trademarks and
> patents, with regards to the copyright license provided by ALv2.
>
> Content provided under BSD, MIT, etc, that might get bundled into a
> distribution with ALv2 code do not convey patent licenses. CC0 is nothing
> special in this regard. That (say) BSD remains silent on the issue does not
> suddenly turn the BSD license into a patent license.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:26 AM Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that CC0 should be considered category X. Software licensed
>> inbound under CC0 expressly excludes any grant of a license to patents the
>> code infringes, so Apache lacks sufficient rights to then license to
>> patents under clause 3 of the Apache License on any outbound code.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:15 PM Craig L Russell (Jira) <ji...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> [
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17571624#comment-17571624
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-617:
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Based on my current understanding of CC0 as prohibiting patent
>>> licensing, I would like us to categorize CC0 as Category X.
>>>
>>> > Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as
>>> well?
>>> >
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > Key: LEGAL-617
>>> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
>>> > Project: Legal Discuss
>>> > Issue Type: Task
>>> > Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
>>> > Priority: Major
>>> >
>>> > See
>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
>>> > {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and
>>> content
>>> > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
>>> > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no
>>> > longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
>>> > have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not
>>> > clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
>>> > packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a
>>> > process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
>>> > through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted to
>>> > note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
>>> > change.
>>> > The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has
>>> > been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
>>> > licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
>>> > clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are
>>> > waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
>>> > document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from a
>>> > FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
>>> > licenses have similar clauses.
>>> > A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
>>> > contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
>>> > official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
>>> > must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
>>> > prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
>>> > license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
>>> > can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
>>> > distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for non-software
>>> > material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
>>> > Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
>>> > {quote}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
>>> (v8.20.10#820010)
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Simon Phipps*
>> *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
>> *Signal/Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816
>>
>>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Clause 3 is for the ALv2 content provided under license. Distributions of
content typically involve items under a multitude of licenses, and the ALv2
is simply for the overall distribution. It is certainly possible to receive
a distribution of content under ALv2 without attendant patent licenses.
Historically, we have been agnostic to the intersection of trademarks and
patents, with regards to the copyright license provided by ALv2.
Content provided under BSD, MIT, etc, that might get bundled into a
distribution with ALv2 code do not convey patent licenses. CC0 is nothing
special in this regard. That (say) BSD remains silent on the issue does not
suddenly turn the BSD license into a patent license.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:26 AM Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> I agree that CC0 should be considered category X. Software licensed
> inbound under CC0 expressly excludes any grant of a license to patents the
> code infringes, so Apache lacks sufficient rights to then license to
> patents under clause 3 of the Apache License on any outbound code.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:15 PM Craig L Russell (Jira) <ji...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17571624#comment-17571624
>> ]
>>
>> Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-617:
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> Based on my current understanding of CC0 as prohibiting patent licensing,
>> I would like us to categorize CC0 as Category X.
>>
>> > Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as
>> well?
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Key: LEGAL-617
>> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
>> > Project: Legal Discuss
>> > Issue Type: Task
>> > Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
>> > Priority: Major
>> >
>> > See
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
>> > {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and
>> content
>> > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
>> > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no
>> > longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
>> > have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not
>> > clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
>> > packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a
>> > process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
>> > through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted to
>> > note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
>> > change.
>> > The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has
>> > been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
>> > licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
>> > clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are
>> > waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
>> > document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from a
>> > FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
>> > licenses have similar clauses.
>> > A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
>> > contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
>> > official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
>> > must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
>> > prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
>> > license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
>> > can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
>> > distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for non-software
>> > material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
>> > Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
>> > {quote}
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
>> (v8.20.10#820010)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> *Simon Phipps*
> *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
> *Signal/Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816
>
>
Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-617) Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
I agree that CC0 should be considered category X. Software licensed inbound
under CC0 expressly excludes any grant of a license to patents the code
infringes, so Apache lacks sufficient rights to then license to patents
under clause 3 of the Apache License on any outbound code.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:15 PM Craig L Russell (Jira) <ji...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17571624#comment-17571624
> ]
>
> Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-617:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Based on my current understanding of CC0 as prohibiting patent licensing,
> I would like us to categorize CC0 as Category X.
>
> > Fedora reconsiders CC0 license. Should ASF change CC0 resolution as well?
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Key: LEGAL-617
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-617
> > Project: Legal Discuss
> > Issue Type: Task
> > Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
> > Priority: Major
> >
> > See
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/
> > {quote} CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and
> content
> > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system).
> > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no
> > longer be allowed for code. This is a fairly unusual change and may
> > have an impact on a nontrivial number of Fedora packages (that is not
> > clear to me right now), and we may grant a carveout for existing
> > packages that include CC0-covered code. While we are moving towards a
> > process in which license approvals are going to be done primarily
> > through the Fedora license data repository on gitlab.com, I wanted to
> > note this on the mailing list because of the significance of the
> > change.
> > The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has
> > been building in FOSS that licenses that preclude any form of patent
> > licensing or patent forbearance cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a
> > clause that says: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are
> > waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
> > document." (The trademark side of that clause is nonproblematic from a
> > FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular Creative Commons
> > licenses have similar clauses.
> > A few months ago we approved ODbL as a content license; this license
> > contained its own "no patent license" clause. Up till this time, the
> > official informal policy of Fedora has been that 'content' licenses
> > must meet the standards for 'code' licenses except that they can
> > prohibit modification. The new Fedora legal documentation on the
> > license approval categories will note that allowed-content licenses
> > can also have a no-patent-license clause. In a FOSS development and
> > distribution context, the absence of patent licensing for non-software
> > material is of significantly less concern than the software case.
> > Feel free to ask any questions or make any comments about this!
> > {quote}
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
> (v8.20.10#820010)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816