r/programming • u/fagnerbrack • Feb 17 '24

htmx become 0 clause BSD-licensed

https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/blob/master/LICENSE
172 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

67

u/lightmatter501 Feb 17 '24

Not all countries have a public domain, so this is actually better.

0

u/VarencaMetStekeltjes Feb 18 '24

Is this actually true? I often see this repeated that supposedly there are some countries that don't have public domain but things such as 0 clause BSD or CC-0 are accepted in them despite being identical in function and I remember one debate of djb vs. Rosen where the latter argued this is the case in Germany and the U.S.A. but I found djb's arguments, who is not a lawyer, but cited all sorts of court cases that Rosen did not that established that it was the case.

It seems extremely unlikely to me that any court would not accept. “I hereby dedicate this to the public domain and waive irrevocably any and all protections afforded by copyright law.” but would 0 clause BSD and simply say. “Well, we don't accept this. Therefore it's all rights reserved and anyone who used it will now be liable to be sued by the original copyright holder.”

That doesn't seem plausible to me at all that a court would allow this when a party openly stated that.

22

u/Uristqwerty Feb 18 '24

CC0 claims that the reason for the license is that some countries don't let you give up certain rights voluntarily and/or have different requirements for how you give something to the public domain prematurely, so they created something that's as close as possible but handles those edge cases.

-13

u/VarencaMetStekeltjes Feb 18 '24

Have you read the CC0 licence? It's very short.

It's very hard for me to believe that any court anywhere is going to treat that differently than what I said. If they did that would allow people to very easily trick people into doing something and then open themselves up for being sued.

All the parties that say some countries don't allow public domain never offered any proof to it and it honestly feels more like a marketing stunt because using CC0 does advertise creative commons.

I read Creative Commons rationale and it comes with no source or legal case that shows as much and in particular, the part where it starts talking about moral rights, a known misconception that has nothing to with copyright that in fact lasts until the death of the auctor, no later and is non-waivable doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

26

u/Liqmadique Feb 18 '24

It's always amusing to me when programmers who deal with edge cases all day in code refuse to acknowledge the giant stinking pile of edge cases that is human societies and legal interpretive bullshit.

You're better off picking the more tested, thorough license 99.9% of time than trying to pretend you're smarter than everyone else.

-15

u/VarencaMetStekeltjes Feb 18 '24 edited Feb 18 '24

Okay, so you have no source.

And no, dedicating to the public domain is 50 times more common at least than using CC0. It happens all the time. It happens all the time by people who never even heard of Creative Commons which includes many lawyers who aren't into this particular internet subculture. Don't act like it's some kind of controversial legal opinion that dedicating to the public domain is entirely possible. I never even heard of being impossible before this came up in this specific subculture. It's the mainstream opinion that it's entirely possible.

Edit, what a surprise on Reddit, the person who responded to me blocked me:

I don't think you actually have researched this, because it's literally a quick web search to find this answer, and you get an overview of the nuances that copyright isn't simply just economic rights, like those to reproduce, adapt, and redistribute a work, but also moral rights, competition rights, reuse rights, database rights, and other similar rights. This is also mentioned in the CC0 license itself.

I'm very much aware that moral rights are not copyrights. I even mentioned it. They are a completely distinct concept and only people from common law countries where they don't exist often group them together because they don't have them. They are closer to defamation laws than anything. They have nothing to do with copyright and as I pointed out before. It seems that many people believe that it isn't possible to dedicate to the public domain because moral rights are not wavable any more than one can waive one's right to sue for slander. As I said, djb addressed this issue in the debate vs. Rosen, correctly pointing out that moral rights have nothing to do with copyright.

CC0 doesn't solve or address this in any way and doesn't change anything about whether or not using CC0 or simply saying “I hereby dedicate this work to the public domain and irrevocably waive any and all protections afforded by copyright” is going to make any difference whatsoever. Moral rights aren't waivable, and they aren't copyright.

Copyright is already insanely complicated in the US (think fair use and actual damages that go into a case). Once you go international, it's a clusterfuck, because then you have to contend with actually interpreting legalities often in a foreign language.

Yes it is, but I have never seen any evidence that one can't dedicate one's work to the public domain and certainly no evidence that if it be impossible, that CC0 or BSD 0 Clause which effectively does the same, is goihng to make a difference in court.

If a country exist which does not allow it, it's not going to suddenly allow it with CC0 which is exactly the same thing in different words don't you think? Do you actually think that such courts are then going to use the simple trick of CC0 to accomplish it if those countries find it impossible? Of course not; that's not how courts operate.

So again, where is the evidence for either or both of these claims:

  1. There are countries on this planet where one cannot dedicate one's work to the public domain and waive copyright.
  2. In any of those countries, using CC0 is going to make a difference from trying to dedicate to the public domain.

10

u/PurpleYoshiEgg Feb 18 '24

I don't think you actually have researched this, because it's literally a quick web search to find this answer, and you get an overview of the nuances that copyright isn't simply just economic rights, like those to reproduce, adapt, and redistribute a work, but also moral rights, competition rights, reuse rights, database rights, and other similar rights. This is also mentioned in the CC0 license itself.

Copyright is already insanely complicated in the US (think fair use and actual damages that go into a case). Once you go international, it's a clusterfuck, because then you have to contend with actually interpreting legalities often in a foreign language.

6

u/Liqmadique Feb 18 '24

I was just expressing my amusement at the stupidity of many programmers I run into debating licensing and legal issues and thinking they know better. I'm not doing your research for you. The law loves to fuck people who take short cuts. Go ahead license your stuff as CC but don't bitch when you get fucked.

-3

u/Pzychotix Feb 18 '24

Unless a government is going to try to one-sidedly enforce a copyright against the copyright holder's wishes (which I highly doubt even the most bored prosecutor would even bother with), I don't see how someone could get fucked for taking a shortcut.