Hi there > It's worth noting that CC0 is not a license but a public domain > dedication. One cannot dual-license it with GPL because copyright > no longer applies to the work: https://creativecommons.org/faq Actually, in some countries' laws there is no notion of public domain and it is not possible to waive one's copyright there. CC0 would fall back to being a license there. Also, due to this ambigious status of public domain, there were cases of business users asking authors of public domain software to also add a different license. But this is a rather rare, overcautious approach and definitely not needed with a carefully-designed waiver like the CC0. I think my response to Liliana 2 minutes ago is also a sufficiently good response to the remaining remarks I could otherwise address here. If not, please tell Best Wojtek -- (sig_start) website: https://koszko.org/koszko.html fingerprint: E972 7060 E3C5 637C 8A4F 4B42 4BC5 221C 5A79 FD1A follow me on Fediverse: https://friendica.me/profile/koszko/profile ♥ R29kIGlzIHRoZXJlIGFuZCBsb3ZlcyBtZQ== | ÷ c2luIHNlcGFyYXRlZCBtZSBmcm9tIEhpbQ== ✝ YnV0IEplc3VzIGRpZWQgdG8gc2F2ZSBtZQ== | ? U2hhbGwgSSBiZWNvbWUgSGlzIGZyaWVuZD8= -- (sig_end) On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 13:15:05 +0900 Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote: > On 2023-12-24 at 03:41+01:00, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > > Publishing some source code under the GPL v3 (or later) > > does not preclude [someone] as the sole author > > from also publishing it under the CC-0. It does > > defeat the purpose of the GPL if you, however, > > because whoever wants to make a proprietary spin-off > > will simply take the CC-0, since whereas the GPL > > gives you access to all the changes when they redistribute it, > > the CC-0 gives you bupkis. > > It's worth noting that CC0 is not a license but a public domain > dedication. One cannot dual-license it with GPL because copyright > no longer applies to the work: https://creativecommons.org/faq > > A CC0 patch to a GPL software does not change the licensing status > of the software, and any modification on top of the public domain > works can continue to be under the GPL. This goes for other parts of > Guix that alone are not copyrightable like the list of facebook hosts. > > Furthermore, even if the author decides to dual license it, it makes > no difference to predatory corporations whether if the information > about the permissively licensed snippets are documented mainline: > that piece of code is still licensed that way. However, once again > note that the dual-licensed modules will become copyleft after > any modification under the GPL. > > The intention of the GPL and software freedom is to protect the freedom > of end-users: it concerns their rights over the overall program. > As long as the program is still copyleft, it would not be possible > to distribute any non-free derivative. > > Now you could argue that if a large part of the codebase > is permissively licensed, the rest could be easily rewrite to produce > a proprietary work. While that is true, the viral property > of copyleft would render this practically impossible, as the chance > of the same parts of guix is contributed solely by people preferring > permissive licenses is really low considering the total number > of contributors. > > I understand the fear of a copyleft work being tainted, > it is just irrational in this very case. On the other hand, > encouraging patches under any GPL-compatible license would put > unnecessary burdens on the maintainers to document which snippet > to be under what license. This is even beyond the scope of REUSE > which would optimistically already take days to implement for guix. > > For this reason, I think it is a reasonable ask for contributions > to be under the same license and authors can self-publish the patch > under a different license if they wish to. As mentioned, those hunks > will not stay permissive forever in guix anyway, nor that guix > owes contributors the favor to allocate resources on something > that does not dirrectly support its mission.