4 ms·

Sounds like Fedora is sacrificing good code for ideological purity.

by maxk42 4y ago

untitaker_ 4y ago
Many Linux distros have been limiting their repos to FOSS from the start. Much of it is ideology, some of it is minimization of legal exposure.
COGlory 4y ago
They aren't mutually exclusive.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
>> 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." > Part of the background story is that on patents, we've fought the scenario that a patent holder could offer some FOSS library implementing their patented method, and then come chase you for patent infringement. What are the boundaries for me, FOSS user, to not be ensnared by a submarine license?
- tux1968 4y ago
  > and then come chase you for patent infringement. Honest question: How could they claim damages from someone to whom they've granted permission? It just doesn't seem like a likely problem. So i'm trying to understand what the actual threat is.
  - macintux 4y ago
    > How could they claim damages from someone to whom they've granted permission? I think that's the key: technically they haven't granted permission, not explicitly, absent a patent waiver. (Disclaimer: not a lawyer, barely paying attention to this.)
  - AlanYx 4y ago
    >Honest question: How could they claim damages from someone to whom they've granted permission? That's actually the underlying rationale here, although it isn't explained well in the linked page. There is the possibility of an implied patent license grant (or waiver) from the licensor in a license that is silent about patent rights, for exactly the reason you state. But CC0 is different, in that it grants permission to use while simultaneously being explicit that there is no implied patent license (or waiver) granted.
limpbizkitfan 4y ago
Nothing wrong with 1. Having principles 2. Having a sane legal framework in place for when the parent trolls come
yc202207253987 4y ago
Unfortunately it sounds like they are doing this to protect themselves from patent trolls, not some kind of ideological purity testing.

Sounds like Fedora is sacrificing good code for ideological purity.

by maxk42 4y ago

Sounds like Fedora is sacrificing good code for ideological purity.

Many Linux distros have been limiting their repos to FOSS from the start. Much of it is ideology, some of it is minimization of legal exposure.

COGlory 4y ago

They aren't mutually exclusive.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

>> 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." > Part of the background story is that on patents, we've fought the scenario that a patent holder could offer some FOSS library implementing their patented method, and then come chase you for patent infringement. What are the boundaries for me, FOSS user, to not be ensnared by a submarine license?

tux1968 4y ago
> and then come chase you for patent infringement. Honest question: How could they claim damages from someone to whom they've granted permission? It just doesn't seem like a likely problem. So i'm trying to understand what the actual threat is.
- macintux 4y ago
  > How could they claim damages from someone to whom they've granted permission? I think that's the key: technically they haven't granted permission, not explicitly, absent a patent waiver. (Disclaimer: not a lawyer, barely paying attention to this.)
- AlanYx 4y ago
  >Honest question: How could they claim damages from someone to whom they've granted permission? That's actually the underlying rationale here, although it isn't explained well in the linked page. There is the possibility of an implied patent license grant (or waiver) from the licensor in a license that is silent about patent rights, for exactly the reason you state. But CC0 is different, in that it grants permission to use while simultaneously being explicit that there is no implied patent license (or waiver) granted.

limpbizkitfan 4y ago

Nothing wrong with 1. Having principles 2. Having a sane legal framework in place for when the parent trolls come

yc202207253987 4y ago

Unfortunately it sounds like they are doing this to protect themselves from patent trolls, not some kind of ideological purity testing.