The documentation incorrectly stated that the MIT license does not
contain a patent provision. Legal analysis (as discussed in the
referenced Red Hat article by Richard Fontana) indicates that the
MIT License's broad grant language may constitute an implicit
patent license. This commit clarifies the distinction between
implicit and explicit patent grants.
Changes:
- Patent usage section: acknowledge implicit patent grant, clarify
that the issue is lack of explicit patent language
- Decision diagram: reframe question about patent provisions
- Conflicts-of-interest: correct characterization of MIT patent
coverage as implicit rather than missing
Fixes: Codeberg/Documentation#468
Closes#752.
Co-authored-by: David Anselmi <danselmi@intecrowd.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/755
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: Dave Anselmi <danselmi@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Dave Anselmi <danselmi@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR contains the following updates:
| Package | Update | Change |
|---|---|---|
| [lycheeverse/lychee](https://github.com/lycheeverse/lychee) | minor | `0.15.1` → `0.22.0` |
---
### Configuration
📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - Only on Sunday and Saturday ( * * * * 0,6 ) (UTC), Automerge - Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM ( * 0-3 * * * ) (UTC).
🚦 **Automerge**: Enabled.
♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR is behind base branch, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.
🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.
---
- [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box
---
This PR has been generated by [Renovate Bot](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate).
<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiI0Mi44Mi4wIiwidXBkYXRlZEluVmVyIjoiNDIuODIuMCIsInRhcmdldEJyYW5jaCI6Im1haW4iLCJsYWJlbHMiOlsiZGVwZW5kZW5jeSJdfQ==-->
Co-authored-by: woodpecker-bot <woodpecker-bot@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/732
Reviewed-by: Bastian Greshake Tzovaras <gedankenstuecke@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Dependency bot <renovate-bot@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Dependency bot <renovate-bot@noreply.codeberg.org>
The Creative Commons organization explicitly marks in their FAQ that
`CC0` is fine for software. Besides, many software projects are
released under it and it is considered `GPL` compatible.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/704
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Clara Engler <cve@cve.cx>
Co-committed-by: Clara Engler <cve@cve.cx>
fix#148
Adds a spell checker via `cspell` and fixes some spelling issues in the docs.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/439
Co-authored-by: pat-s <patrick.schratz@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: pat-s <patrick.schratz@gmail.com>
This should make it comply a bit more with the style guide.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/392
Reviewed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Co-authored-by: thatonecoder <thatonecoder@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: thatonecoder <thatonecoder@noreply.codeberg.org>
Only did some minor changes (most of them are formatting) and resolving all conversations from #181
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/208
Co-authored-by: René Schaar <rene@schaar.priv.at>
Co-committed-by: René Schaar <rene@schaar.priv.at>
Text is according to the discussion on the issue #174.
Co-authored-by: Thomas Kramer <code@tkramer.ch>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/181
Co-authored-by: tok <tok@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: tok <tok@noreply.codeberg.org>
Looking of course for feedback on this, as I am not an expert on this at
all. This does capture some of the questions I had when starting to look
into licensing.
