5 ms·

It doesn’t ‘preclude’ anything by disclaiming implications either way. It leaves all possibilities open, which is the opposite of ‘precluding’. Someone can ab

by gojomo 4y ago

It doesn’t ‘preclude’ anything by disclaiming implications either way. It leaves all possibilities open, which is the opposite of ‘precluding’. Someone can absolutely say “Though some might think my prior words endorse or reject X, let me be clear I don’t endorse or reject X.” You can mention X, especially in a aspires-to-be-rigorous context like law, without committing to a treatment.

josephcsible 4y ago
Sure, but that's not what CC0 says. CC0 says "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.", which is more like saying "I reject X."
- gojomo 4y ago
  "by this document" limits the effect such that it doesn't [emphasis added] "PRECLUDE ANY FORM OF PATENT LICENSING or patent forbearance" via other documents/mechanisms. (It does preclude one particular implied-permission interpretation, as others have helpfully pointed out.)
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > (It does preclude one particular implied-permission interpretation that others have helpfully pointed out.) Yes, and this seems to be the entire reason that Fedora is revoking approval of the license.
    - gojomo 4y ago
      And if Fontana had written, and LWN excerpted, a statement like... "The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS that licenses that EXPLICITLY DISCLAIM PATENT FORBEARANCE cannot be considered FOSS." ...I'd have not flagged any apparent textual contradiction – and understood the rationale better. It was the broad, unqualified allegation that CC0's text would "preclude any form of patent licensing or patent forbearance" that created the impression of mismatch between reasoning and literal text. (And note: submission link has changed since I commented from a tiny excerpt of Fontana's announcement, and the full email.)
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    The problem is that you are arguing about something that is not the issue. The issue isn't “via other documents/mechanisms”, the issue is whether it precludes patent grants that may be necessary to exercises the permissions in the license from being found to be granted by the license. Anything that grants permissions for particular but doesn't rule a grant of specific rights (at issue at the moment, patent, but the same would be true of any other specific rights) necessary to that use is most naturally read as granting all rights the licensor has power to grant necessary to the use explicitly licensed (and also as a claim that the licensor has a right to grant all rights necessary for that use.) If it specifically excludes particular rights that may be necessary to that use, then the license itself is on its face insufficient for the use it appears to grant without a separate license for the other rights or independent evidence that no rights which would be an obstacle are held anywhere else.
- bawolff 4y ago
  > which is more like saying "I reject X." I dont think it is. I really dont see how you could read that sentence and get "i reject x" out if it.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    It's saying "I'm not giving you any patent licenses", not "I'm not saying whether or not I'm giving you any patent licenses".
    - bawolff 4y ago
      I disagree. More specificly its saying "the previous statement i just made is not me saying i am giving you a patent license. However i'm not saying in general whether or not i am going to give you one, and i might be giving you one in some other statement." There is of course a certain sense where not rendering an opinion is the same as the supporting the status quo ante (which would be no patent license), but i dont think its fair to equate an implicit no opinion = no patent license with an explicit no patent license.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> It doesn’t ‘preclude’ anything by disclaiming implications either way. Yes, it does. A license that gives permission to use software but does not enumerate specific rights that the licensor holds which may be necessary to use the software will most naturally be read as licensing all necessary rights held by the licensor. A license which explicitly disclaims any grant of patent rights can only be read as...not granting patent rights held by the licensor, even if they may be necessary to use the software. Thus, such a grant which would otherwise be reasonably included is, instead, explicitly precluded.

by gojomo 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

Sure, but that's not what CC0 says. CC0 says "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.", which is more like saying "I reject X."

gojomo 4y ago
"by this document" limits the effect such that it doesn't [emphasis added] "PRECLUDE ANY FORM OF PATENT LICENSING or patent forbearance" via other documents/mechanisms. (It does preclude one particular implied-permission interpretation, as others have helpfully pointed out.)
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > (It does preclude one particular implied-permission interpretation that others have helpfully pointed out.) Yes, and this seems to be the entire reason that Fedora is revoking approval of the license.
  - gojomo 4y ago
    And if Fontana had written, and LWN excerpted, a statement like... "The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS that licenses that EXPLICITLY DISCLAIM PATENT FORBEARANCE cannot be considered FOSS." ...I'd have not flagged any apparent textual contradiction – and understood the rationale better. It was the broad, unqualified allegation that CC0's text would "preclude any form of patent licensing or patent forbearance" that created the impression of mismatch between reasoning and literal text. (And note: submission link has changed since I commented from a tiny excerpt of Fontana's announcement, and the full email.)
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The problem is that you are arguing about something that is not the issue. The issue isn't “via other documents/mechanisms”, the issue is whether it precludes patent grants that may be necessary to exercises the permissions in the license from being found to be granted by the license. Anything that grants permissions for particular but doesn't rule a grant of specific rights (at issue at the moment, patent, but the same would be true of any other specific rights) necessary to that use is most naturally read as granting all rights the licensor has power to grant necessary to the use explicitly licensed (and also as a claim that the licensor has a right to grant all rights necessary for that use.) If it specifically excludes particular rights that may be necessary to that use, then the license itself is on its face insufficient for the use it appears to grant without a separate license for the other rights or independent evidence that no rights which would be an obstacle are held anywhere else.
bawolff 4y ago
> which is more like saying "I reject X." I dont think it is. I really dont see how you could read that sentence and get "i reject x" out if it.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  It's saying "I'm not giving you any patent licenses", not "I'm not saying whether or not I'm giving you any patent licenses".
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I disagree. More specificly its saying "the previous statement i just made is not me saying i am giving you a patent license. However i'm not saying in general whether or not i am going to give you one, and i might be giving you one in some other statement." There is of course a certain sense where not rendering an opinion is the same as the supporting the status quo ante (which would be no patent license), but i dont think its fair to equate an implicit no opinion = no patent license with an explicit no patent license.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> It doesn’t ‘preclude’ anything by disclaiming implications either way. Yes, it does. A license that gives permission to use software but does not enumerate specific rights that the licensor holds which may be necessary to use the software will most naturally be read as licensing all necessary rights held by the licensor. A license which explicitly disclaims any grant of patent rights can only be read as...not granting patent rights held by the licensor, even if they may be necessary to use the software. Thus, such a grant which would otherwise be reasonably included is, instead, explicitly precluded.