c-ringbuf icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
c-ringbuf copied to clipboard

Consider dual licensing aside of CC0

Open mochaaP opened this issue 11 months ago • 4 comments

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/[email protected]/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 avatar Mar 13 '24 07:03 mochaaP

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

mochaaP avatar Mar 13 '24 07:03 mochaaP

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.

dhess avatar Mar 20 '24 18:03 dhess

"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 avatar Mar 21 '24 05:03 mochaaP

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!

mochaaP avatar Mar 21 '24 05:03 mochaaP