document/TranslateProject
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject.git synced 2024-12-26 21:30:55 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #26735 from yjacks/1

Browse Source 
Translating
This commit is contained in:
六开箱 2022-08-11 00:18:15 +08:00 committed by GitHub
commit 767a7d08a1
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
2 changed files with 49 additions and 49 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

49
sources/talk/20220801 What Made Fedora Choose To Use CC0 Licensed Code As The Boot.md
View File

@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
[#]: subject: "What Made Fedora Choose To Use CC0 Licensed Code As The Boot"
[#]: via: "https://www.opensourceforu.com/2022/08/what-made-fedora-choose-to-use-cc0-licensed-code-as-the-boot/"
[#]: author: "Laveesh Kocher https://www.opensourceforu.com/author/laveesh-kocher/"
[#]: collector: "lkxed"
[#]: translator: " "
[#]: reviewer: " "
[#]: publisher: " "
[#]: url: " "
What Made Fedora Choose To Use CC0 Licensed Code As The Boot
======
![fedora-1024x614][1]
Open source is a challenging concept. Many people interpret this to mean that they can use a specific piece of software however they choose and that it is free to download. The actual rights you as a user are granted, however, depend largely on which licence the developers chose to share their code under. Open source software can be expensive, can restrict how you can use it, and in rare circumstances, can even land you in legal trouble.
The Fedora Project recently decided to reject all code that is licenced under the Creative Commons “Public Domain Dedication” CC0 licence in an effort to avoid precisely this situation. CC0 will soon be removed from the list of permissible code licences for all new submissions, however it will still be permitted for material like artwork and there might even be exceptions made for current packages on a case-by-case basis.
It wouldn’t ordinarily make the news if Fedora objected to a software licence. In fact, the project rejects a number of licences that are on a fairly extensive list. The unexpected aspect of this situation is that CC0 was originally regarded as a valid licence, and is only now being reclassified as a result of a shift in perspective within the greater free and open source (FOSS) community.
What exactly is wrong with CC0 that Fedora decided to stop supporting it, and does this indicate you shouldn’t use the licence for your own projects?
The part of this narrative that may surprise those who are familiar with Creative Commons and its family of licences the most is that the Fedora Project formerly approved CC0 for software in the first place. After all, the goal from the beginning was to develop a range of licences expressly for artistic works. The organization’s mission and licence requirements are stated in the name itself.
To “overcome legal hurdles to the sharing of information and creativity” by offering a free framework under which people and organisations might share things like music, artwork, or educational material, Creative Commons, the forerunner of the previous Open Content Project, was established in 2001. Software, however, was never a factor. Why might that be? At that time, important software licences like the MIT License and the GNU General Public License had already been around for more than ten years.
It seems obvious that you should probably believe a company if they go out of their way to warn you that something they have made is unsuitable for a particular use. The Creative Commons FAQ lists a number of compelling arguments against using their licences for software, but one in particular jumps out for users like the Fedora Project: patent rights.
This may seem contradictory given that the CC0 licence is meant for works in the public domain and that by using it, the creator expressly “waives all of his or her rights to the work globally under copyright law.” However, the issue is that copyright legislation does not apply to patents. In fact, a review of the license’s complete wording reveals that it directly tackles this in a worrying section that reads, “No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, relinquished, leased or otherwise modified by this document.”
In other words, even while the author of something that has been licenced under CC0 may be willing to give up the rights to it, they are still free to patent it. What’s even worse is that they still retain the ability to use that patent however they see fit. Theoretically, this means that the creator of a piece of source code that was first made available under CC0 may later assert that anyone who utilised the code violated their patent and could demand royalties.
It’s very obvious why something like this would worry the Fedora Project. Consider a scenario where CC0-licensed code is incorporated into a system’s core package and then made available to millions of users. Out of nowhere, the original creator appears, alleges patent violation, and wants payment. Could Red Hat’s or Fedora’s attorneys refute such a claim? Maybe. Is it worth it to use CC0 code in order to find out for sure? Zero chance.
It’s important to note that this is not at anyway a new issue. In fact, back in 2012, the patent clause prevented the Open Source Initiative’s (OSI) License Review Committee from conclusively determining if CC0 genuinely complied with their definition of an open source licence. The Committee was unable to come to an agreement because its members believed that included such terms in a software licence would create a risky precedent. Fedora’s decision to ever accept CC0 in the first place is even more puzzling given its turbulent history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
via: https://www.opensourceforu.com/2022/08/what-made-fedora-choose-to-use-cc0-licensed-code-as-the-boot/
作者：[Laveesh Kocher][a]
选题：[lkxed][b]
译者：[译者ID](https://github.com/译者ID)
校对：[校对者ID](https://github.com/校对者ID)
本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创编译，[Linux中国](https://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出
[a]: https://www.opensourceforu.com/author/laveesh-kocher/
[b]: https://github.com/lkxed
[1]: https://www.opensourceforu.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/fedora-1024x614-1-e1659346500461.jpg

49
translated/talk/20220801 What Made Fedora Choose To Use CC0 Licensed Code As The Boot.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
[#]: subject: "What Made Fedora Choose To Use CC0 Licensed Code As The Boot"
[#]: via: "https://www.opensourceforu.com/2022/08/what-made-fedora-choose-to-use-cc0-licensed-code-as-the-boot/"
[#]: author: "Laveesh Kocher https://www.opensourceforu.com/author/laveesh-kocher/"
[#]: collector: "lkxed"
[#]: translator: "yjacks"
[#]: reviewer: " "
[#]: publisher: " "
[#]: url: " "
为什么 Fedora 一开始允许使用 CC0 许可证
======
![fedora-1024x614][1]
开源是一个具有挑战性的概念。许多人认为，开源意味着可以任意的使用软件，亦或者是免费下载。这实际上取决于你如何被许可——开发者分享代码时使用的许可证决定了它。开源软件可以是收费的，也可以限制你如何去使用它，甚至让你陷入法律麻烦。
Fedora 项目最近决定拒绝所有使用 <ruby>知识共享<rt>Creative Commons</rt></ruby> "公共领域贡献" CC0 许可证开放的代码，以避免 CC0 许可的代码的出现。CC0 将从新提交代码中准许使用的许可证列表中剔除，但是，像艺术品一类的贡献仍被允许，甚至可能对目前的包进行逐一的处理。
CC0 是因为什么让 Fedora 决定停止支持它，这又是不是意味着你不能在你自己的项目中使用它呢？
这一段描述让最熟悉 CC 及其许可系列的人惊讶的是，Fedora 最初允许了 CC0 的软件。毕竟， 知识共享从一开始的目标是为艺术作品提供一系列明确的许可证。该组织的使命和许可证的要求在其名称——知识共享中就有体现。
为了"克服分享信息和创造力的法律障碍"，他们提供了一个自由框架来为人们组织分享如音乐、医学或教育材料的资源，知识共享组织的前身——<ruby>开放内容项目<rt>Open Content Project</rt></ruby>，创建于2001年。然而，软件从来不是组成它的要素。为什么呢？因为那时，如 MIT 、 GPL 一类的重要的软件许可证已经出现了十几年。
很明显，在一些特定的领域，你也许需要相信一个公司的创造是无害的。CC FAQ 列出了说些反对使用他们的软件许可证的令人信服的论据，但对于像 Fedora 项目这样的用户来说，有一个问题特别突出：专利权。
也许是很明显的，使用 CC0 许可证意味着在公共领域使用它，它很明确的表示“在全球范围内放弃他或她根据版权法对该作品的所有权利。”但是，问题在于，版权法并不适用于专利。事实上，仔细审视许可证的完整措辞后可以发现，它在一个令人担忧的部分解决了这个问题，该部分内容如下：“宣告者拥有的任何商标或专利权都没有被放弃、抛弃、放弃、租赁或以其他方式被本文件修改。”
在别的措辞中，甚至当授权在 CC0 许可证下时——这意味着可能将放弃放弃对它的一切权力，开发者仍然可以自由的为它申请专利。更糟糕的是，他们仍然保留着以他们认为合适的方式使用该专利的能力。
理论上来说，这意味着最初在 CC0 下提供的源代码的人在发布了代码之后，他们可以断言任何使用该代码的人侵犯了他们的专利，并要求支付专利费。
这显然会让像 Fedora 这样的项目担忧。考虑到 CC0 授权的场景是组成系统的核心包，然后将被用于数以百万计的用户。不知道从哪里冒出来的原创作者，声称侵犯了专利权，并要求付款。红帽或 Fedora 的律师可以驳倒这种说法么？也许吧。那么，有使用 CC0 代码的价值么？没有。
要着重提到的是，这完全不是一个新问题。实际上，回到 2012 年，专利法阻止了开源倡议（OSI）许可证的审查委员会。因此，他们无法最终确定 CC0 是否真正符合他们对开放源代码许可的定义。委员会未能达成一致意见，因为其成员认为将此类条款纳入软件许可将创造一个危险的先例。考虑到 Fedora 动荡的历史，它最初接受 CC0 的决定着实让人费解。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
via: https://www.opensourceforu.com/2022/08/what-made-fedora-choose-to-use-cc0-licensed-code-as-the-boot/
作者：[Laveesh Kocher][a]
选题：[lkxed][b]
译者：[yjacks](https://github.com/yjacks)
校对：[校对者ID](https://github.com/校对者ID)
本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创编译，[Linux中国](https://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出
[a]: https://www.opensourceforu.com/author/laveesh-kocher/
[b]: https://github.com/lkxed
[1]: https://www.opensourceforu.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/fedora-1024x614-1-e1659346500461.jpg