3 ms·

It insinuates nothing of the sort. It just suggests that you’re using a form license that mentions that. In the specific context of CC0, it’s not a license but

It insinuates nothing of the sort. It just suggests that you’re using a form license that mentions that. In the specific context of CC0, it’s not a license but rather a public domain dedication (with fallback license) and so anything about patents is by definition out of scope—the document is strictly focused on elements of copyright law. The sentence in question here is just reminding you of that fact.

kazinator 4y ago
I'm just trying to guess the reason why CC0 was singled out. Why would Fedora not want to expunge all licenses that doesn't mention patents at the same time? Probably the reasoning is that most licenses that don't mention patents don't actually have any patents behind them. Most CC0 probably don't either, but since CC0 explicitly says patents are not waived, that's where Fedora decided to start cleaning house. As a free software developer, I just want to know whether this is the way the wind is blowing? Do I have to re-license everything with a different BSD license that incorporates a patent waiver? I see this whole thing as pointless, because even if you don't hold any patents, it's almost impossible to write any significant piece of code without infringing on multiple ridiculous software patents that someone filed somewhere. Just because I add a sentence saying I won't enforce any patents against the users of my code doesn't mean that some third party in the world will not do that. That's probably one reason licenses are mum about patents; patents are a threat coming from someone else which your own waiver doesn't dispel.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Why would Fedora not want to expunge all licenses that doesn't mention patents at the same time? The idea is that a generic grant of usage rights will cover multiple forms of IP, so it's fine. But if it says "this is copyright only" that's a problem. The issue isn't directly about whether it mentions patents or not.

kazinator 4y ago

I'm just trying to guess the reason why CC0 was singled out. Why would Fedora not want to expunge all licenses that doesn't mention patents at the same time? Probably the reasoning is that most licenses that don't mention patents don't actually have any patents behind them. Most CC0 probably don't either, but since CC0 explicitly says patents are not waived, that's where Fedora decided to start cleaning house. As a free software developer, I just want to know whether this is the way the wind is blowing? Do I have to re-license everything with a different BSD license that incorporates a patent waiver? I see this whole thing as pointless, because even if you don't hold any patents, it's almost impossible to write any significant piece of code without infringing on multiple ridiculous software patents that someone filed somewhere. Just because I add a sentence saying I won't enforce any patents against the users of my code doesn't mean that some third party in the world will not do that. That's probably one reason licenses are mum about patents; patents are a threat coming from someone else which your own waiver doesn't dispel.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Why would Fedora not want to expunge all licenses that doesn't mention patents at the same time? The idea is that a generic grant of usage rights will cover multiple forms of IP, so it's fine. But if it says "this is copyright only" that's a problem. The issue isn't directly about whether it mentions patents or not.