Relicense

[JayFoxRox]

XbSymbolDatabase should be relicensed to CC0 / BSD / MIT or something similar.

It's currently GPL, but that has a couple of drawbacks:

• Some tools, such as IDA Pro are not GPL and we couldn't legally make plugins for that.
• Most appstores don't allow Open-Source (so we need abilities to dual-license), so our own tools / debuggers for smartphones would possibly be impossible to release in the future.
• On Xbox, there's no dynamic linker, so even LGPL wouldn't be too helpful.

So while it's good to force users to provide code open-source, it's also preventing some use-cases or makes distribution more cumbersome.

I think it's bad for this library to force open-source anyway, as it's largely incompatible with its use cases. I can't think of a bad context either, where a non-open-source license would damage this project.

[RadWolfie]

Since not all contributors were carried over from Cxbx-Reloaded to XbSymbolDatabase. I looked through the history in "HLEDatabase" folder. These are the contributors that I know of did the work. However, I'm not sure if their original work still exist (during the rework process).

• caustiks (which username below?)
• blueshogun96
• jarupxx
• RadWolfie
• PatrickvL
• LukeUsher
• x1nixmzeng
• jackchentwkh
• anita999
• darrena092
• phire
• Echelon9
• dstien

Couple of users I did not included since they only did a manual add existing OOVPA to specific XDK version. Once we do have better information gathered from github's data. We'll need their approval for relicense as well.

[RadWolfie]

I am fine with either MIT or BSD 2 clause.

@LukeUsher replied to @JayFoxRox request for re-license.

I’m all for BSD recently 2 clause I guess

[RadWolfie]

Both @JayFoxRox and @LukeUsher concluded the OOVPA signatures data are just data as they do not apply to code licensing.

While I agree with them, there are such thing for database licensing. For example: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/

I don't think there will be an issue with re-license though.

Until we have all 6 agree for re-license, we can't do anything yet.

• [x] Caustiks (founder of OOVPA structure)
• [x] @PatrickvL
• [X] @LukeUsher
• [X] @jarupxx
• [X] @RadWolfie
• [ ] ~~@mborgerson (made cli tool)~~ (no longer require permission to change license)

As they are the one who did current scan process work.

[jarupxx]

I agree to re-license. MIT or BSD 2 clause is good I think.

[PatrickvL]

Whatever license is fine for me too

[caustik]

I agree

[RadWolfie]

Turns out I had not add @mborgerson to the list since Thrimbor sent a pull request, except the original code is from Matt, after this ticket. Matt is the one who made the cli tool which currently has no license to its header.