Hot answers tagged

19

Sparr's original answer was good, but he should have left in the bit about being sued. The point is that the language used in CC0 constitutes a legal hazard for anyone that receives a program under CC0 and uses it in good faith. This is the infamous patent clause of CC0: No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, ...


11

Suppose that I patent an algorithm, X. Then I develop and release an implementation of that algorithm, Y. I release Y with an open source license, granting permission for others to use and distribute Y. Generally speaking, it has always been assumed that my granting of permission to use and distribute Y has also been a grant to use and distribute X. However, ...


10

Bob can relicense it under any license he wishes. Taking credit for Alice's work is another thing. In jurisdictions that hold up moral rights, Bob can't. The moral rights cannot be given up by Alice, so they are still intact. What consists moral rights differs a bit, but proper attribution is usually included. In jurisdictions without moral rights, ...


9

CC-BY is listed among compatible licenses near the bottom of the GPL license compatibility page: This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and entertainment works, and educational works. It is compatible with all versions of the GNU GPL; however, it is not recommended for use on software. In general, the difference between CC0 and CC-...


8

From the WTFPL FAQ: Why is there no “no warranty” clause? The WTFPL is an all-purpose license and does not cover only computer programs; it can be used for artwork, documentation and so on. As such, it only covers copying, distribution and modification. If you want to add a no warranty clause for a program, you may use the following wording in your ...


7

I don't think CC0 has any shortcomings compared to Public Domain. After all, CC0 was created with the explicit goal of fixing shortcomings of the simple method of writing "this is released to the Public Domain". As far as I know, the main problem with the concept of "Public Domain" is that it has different implications in different jurisdictions. In ...


7

This is explained in the CC0 license itself under "The Problem": Few if any jurisdictions have a process for [contributing their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire] easily and reliably. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ Basically, some jurisdictions don't recognize the ...


5

Ideas themselves are not copyrighted, thus you can use them without any problem but it is always good of course to cite the source, and even if it is not compulsory from a legal standpoint, it is from an academic standpoint. As for the second part, you can invoke fair use to cite very short quotes from textbooks and your course notes. Beyond that, you would ...


5

The CC0 license is essentially a public domain dedication. Looking at the license deed, it does not depend on jurisdictions, as it waives all rights normally provided under the copyright law by the legal authorities of the jurisdiction. Bob can take Alice's work freely, but Alice will still retain any moral rights that is entitled to her. You don't legally ...


5

Short answer: You can do what you want. If you are the original author of a work, you have the right to do anything with it[1]. Whether you gave it away under some license before doesn't matter. You can release it under a different license, if you want to, whether you modify it or not. If you released it under some "cannot sell" license you could still ...


4

The Berne Convention, of which most of the world is a signatory, states that copyright is assigned automatically to the creator upon the work's creation. Thus, if I create a piece of software, unless I specify otherwise, no one else is allowed to do anything with it. Much of the time, this isn't what we want. Open-source licenses provide many freedoms to ...


4

I'm not familiar with Wikidata, but I don't think this would be ok. When you go to create an article on Wikidata, you're met with this: By clicking "Create", you agree to the terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons CC0 License. There's nothing there about contributing content that is licensed by ...


3

Without knowing more details about the software you want to build I would argue, that the music is only data used by your program. As such neither your program is a derivative work of the music, nor the other way around. This would mean, that you can freely chose the Free Software license you prefer for your project.


3

If you are the sole copyright holder, you are free to issue licenses as you see fit. The only exception to this is if you issue an exclusive license that effectively transfers (parts of) your copyright to another person. You cannot issue a license for a right that you no longer hold. However, common open source licenses are non-exclusive. The CC0 fallback ...


3

Since CC0 is essentially a way of waiving copyright, you don't need to add a "Copyright (C) ..." line. I generally replace that with a "written by Joe Blogs 201x" to allow subsequent users/distributors to keep track of the code's history but that is not required.


3

I've covered a few of practical uses for attaching a license like the WTFPL in a response to a similar but more pointed question. The claim CC0 is more liberal is incorrect as CC0 comes with a number of limitations the WTFPL doesn't have such as limitations on: Patent use; Warranty; Trademark use; and, Liability. In fact WTFPL has no restrictions ...


2

The CC0 license allows you to do just about anything you like with that dataset, including distributing it along with your R code in the same package. As a matter of common curtesy, I would recommend that you add things to the documentation of your package A statement that the dataset is licensed separately from the rest of the package under the CC0 ...


2

Assuming that the link to home page is correct and that the source code link from the home page is correct, I'd think that the CC0-1.0 and Public notes are just wrongly tagged. An unimportant human factor mistake, maybe. The grave bit is that actually the software might not be under ALv2, because it seems it might be GPL'ed software later disguised as ALv2. ...


2

The copyright and the license are two different things. Placing (c)2017 Joe Blogs in a document is stating that you own the copyright of the work and are claiming the rights related to the copyright. If you don't openly display your copyright ownership then you may later need to offer proof that you created and published the work in any dispute and may even ...


2

The CC0 license is intended to be a "Public Domain Dedication". In jurisdictions where the public domain is non-existent: it attempts to waive all rights in order to be as close to the public domain as possible. However, be wary of how you use CC0. In some jurisdictions, there is the concept of "Moral Rights", which includes attribution, which can not be ...


2

There's no legal requirement [in the USA] that the CC0 license and authorship information be retained. The only risk that I know of for claiming someone else's CC0 material as your own is that you might be publicly shamed for it. As an experiment, I ("Alice") released some code under CC0 on Stack Overflow several months ago. Here's the license as I applied ...


2

You need to release the whole program under GPL. But nothing prevents you to release the additional source code that you wrote under CC0 as well (it is your code, you can give as many permissions on it as you wish). However, if you distribute a binary for your software, it can only be distributed under the GPL to meet with the conditions of this license. ...


2

I cannot answer to the status with respect to German laws but there a few interesting precedents and commentaries that would let me think this may be a perfectly OK license for Germany (and this in contrast with a bare PD dedication which may be problematic in Germany as far as I have heard). The German Wikipedia uses CC0 to dedicate data into the public ...


2

They are compatible with almost everything. When using CC-0 you have the right to do everything and when using CC-By you just need to give credits to the creator and point out changes. For example in the Readme.md


2

This is potentially a big question but the short answer is it depends - basically if the other components are: Licenced in a manner that is not aggressively copyleft, i.e. allow other uses, Used unchanged Not being distributed just used Correctly attributed on your site Then in my non-expert opinion you should be OK but collect the licences of the packages ...


1

By choosing a license for your project (here a public domain dedication), you effectively make a promise to your users about not only your own code but also all the dependencies for your code and the licenses of these dependencies. In making a promise, you should be clear about your policy for these dependencies: are they all under the same terms (e.g. CC0) ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible