intellectual-property internet software licensing open-source-software
What effect does a project&#39;s software license have on its cultural works?
<p><a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><code>0BSD</code></a> and <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><code>ISC</code></a> are software licenses. They grant permissions for software. I guess these granted permissions legally only apply to what fits the legal definition of software. What if a project combines software with non-software works? What effect does applying a software license to a project have on non-software works within that project? An example scenario is a website implementing <code>0BSD</code> via top-level <a href="https://github.com/s9a/plato/blob/899b774c20702dd97055b1e01e03d58ae75472f1/LICENSE.txt" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><code>LICENSE.txt</code></a> like in <a href="https://github.com/s9a/plato/tree/899b774c20702dd97055b1e01e03d58ae75472f1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this template</a>.</p>

<p>The scope of the license is a bit murky, since it just refers to "this software". The intent of the license author is not exactly relevant, because the license author isn't the person with the right to permit copying, the author of the content is. When a content-creator make a vague reference to a canned license, it is not at all clear what they wanted to grant permission to do. Since software is legally treated as being a "literary work" at least in the US, it's not reasonable to hold that permission to use "this software" specifically excludes non source-code items (such as help files, blogs about the software, even associated graphics). Some programs simply will not run without associated graphic content. By a preponderance of evidence, the courts would conclude that the copyright holder intended the entire "package" (that directory) to be licensed. Of course, the copyright holder could also change the license terms if that is not his intent, and that would (theoretically) affect future downloads, except that others could redistribute the package under the terms of the original license. If the rights-holder intended to restrict certain components, they would have given a more specific license, excluding whatever bits are to be excluded.</p>
