ZeroNet
ZeroNet copied to clipboard
HelloZeroNet
Contributor Agreement for License Change [Updated]
Hello to all previous ZeroNet contributors.
ZeroNet project has recently been informed of some license incompatibilities. Namely, we are using some Apache 2.0 and GPLv3 dependencies, whilst the current ZeroNet license is GPLv2. Thus, I would now ask the contributors to support GPLv3 switch.
A bot is listening on this thread. Please post exactly one of the following 13 comments:
- GPLv3 and Lax if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or to GPLv3-only or a Lax/Permissive license
- GPLv3+ and Lax if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or a Lax/Permissive license
- GPLv3-only and Lax if you accept switching to either GPLv3-only or a Lax/Permissive license
- GPLv3+ if you accept switching to GPLv3 or later
- GPLv3-only if you accept switching to GPLv3-only
- GPLv3 if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or to GPLv3-only
- AGPLv3 if you accept switching to AGPLv3 (this would require modified ZeorNet proxies to release their modified source code)
- MIT/BSD2 if you accept switching to MIT or BSD-2-Clause
- BSD3 if you accept switching to BSD-3-Clause
- Apache2 if you accept switching to an Apache-2.0
- Lax if you accept switching to any Lax/Permissive license (except Public Domain)
- None if you don't accept changing license, or if you want a different license not listed
- I don't care if you accept switching to whatever issue those who run ZeroNet project want. This is the same as the GPLv3 and Lax option below but it might include more licenses if it's found appropriate
Accepting the first case is recommended: GPLv3 ("and later" or "-only") would be used for ZeroNet core and Lax/Permissive licenses would be used for libraries.
Switching to a Lax/Permissive would require all GPL dependencies to be replaced. Not allowing the switch to a different license (therefore keeping GPLv2) would also require all GPLv3 dependencies, as well as Apache dependencies, to be replaced.
Notice: The term "Lax/Permissive license" used here does not include Public Domain licenses. They do, however, include BSD 2/3, MIT, ISC, and Apache-2.0
Statistics
- GPLv3+: 68.0% (70)
- GPLv3-only: 68.9% (71)
- AGPLv3: 1.9% (2)
- MIT/BSD2: 51.5% (53)
- BSD3: 51.5% (53)
- Apache2: 51.5% (53)
- Blocking: 1.0% (1)
- No reply: 30.1% (31)
Contributor list
- [x] ~~@shortcutme~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @HelloZeroNet
- [x] ~~@imachug~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@rllola~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@tangdou1~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@TheNain38~~: GPLv3-only and Lax
- [x] ~~@jerry-wolf~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@radfish~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @MuxZeroNet
- [x] ~~@matthewrobertbell~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @grez911
- [x] ~~@sirMackk~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@Idealcoder~~: GPLv3
- [ ] @rainlime
- [x] ~~@ysc3839~~: GPLv3+
- [ ] @barrabinfc
- [ ] @0polar
- [x] ~~@filips123~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@cclauss~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@DaniellMesquita~~: GPLv3
- [ ] @anoadragon453
- [x] ~~@n3r0-ch~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@OliverCole~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [ ] @Th3B3st
- [x] ~~@geekless~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@cxgreat2014~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [x] ~~@erqan~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@iShift~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@mkg20001~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [ ] @krzotr
- [x] ~~@krixano~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [ ] @nathantym
- [x] ~~@Emeraude~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @frerepoulet
- [ ] @aitorpazos
- [ ] @jTeego
- [ ] @yowmamasita
- [x] ~~@reezer~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@danielquinn~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@HostFat~~: GPLv3
- [x] ~~@JeremyRand~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@volker48~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @tormath1
- [ ] @rarbg
- [x] ~~@ppsfassa~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@brunogarciavaz~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@caryoscelus~~: GPLv3+
- [ ] @hugbubby
- [ ] @mishfit
- [x] ~~@vitorio~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@xfq~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [x] ~~@6543~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [x] ~~@ajmeese7~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@AceLewis~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@megfault~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@zasei~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@artemmolotov~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@Nephos~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @Austin-Williams
- [x] ~~@bencevans~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@valkheim~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@d14na~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [x] ~~@thesoftwarejedi~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @Derson5
- [x] ~~@dldx~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @EdenSG
- [x] ~~@camponez~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [ ] @Erkan-Yilmaz
- [x] ~~@Fil~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@gyulaweber~~: GPLv3+
- [ ] ~~@shakna-israel~~: Blocking
- [x] ~~@flibustier~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [ ] @justinwiley
- [x] ~~@kseistrup~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@MRoci~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@sexybiggetje~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [x] ~~@BoboTiG~~: Doesn't care
- [ ] @medimatrix
- [ ] @Nodeswitch
- [ ] @Ornataweaver
- [x] ~~@adrelanos~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@quasiyoke~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@Radtoo~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [ ] @RedbHawk
- [ ] @rcmorano
- [x] ~~@rubo77~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@SuperSandro2000~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@Thunder33345~~: Lax
- [x] ~~@anonym~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@beigexperience~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@blurHY~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@dqwyy~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@eduaddad~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@goofy-mdn~~: Lax
- [ ] @krikmo
- [ ] @leycec
- [x] ~~@mnlg~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@mymage~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@probonopd~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [x] ~~@saber28~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@rwv~~: Doesn't care
- [x] ~~@sinkuu~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [ ] @zwgshr
Passing people
If you're not a contributor but you still want to support this or that option, you can post a comment as well. These comments will appear below.
- [x] ~~@skwerlman~~: GPLv3+ and Lax
- [x] ~~@0x6a73~~: GPLv3-only and Lax
- [x] ~~@CatTheHacker~~: Lax
- [x] ~~@blazercrypter~~: GPLv3-only and Lax
- [x] ~~@alopexc0de~~: GPLv3-only and Lax
- [x] ~~@zeronettimemachine~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@ghost~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@CyberSecurityEngineer~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@USAhas8000PlusNuclearBombForSelfDefense~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@George-Soros~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@Lambeosaurus~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@Kusoneko~~: GPLv3 and Lax
- [x] ~~@decentralizedauthority~~: GPLv3+
- [x] ~~@canewsin~~: MIT/BSD2
- [x] ~~@russianagent~~: GPLv3+
Making sure the second-half of the list of contributors get properly mentioned:
@xfq @6543 @ajmeese7 @AceLewis @megfault @zasei @artemmolotov @Nephos @Austin-Williams @bencevans @valkheim @d14na @thesoftwarejedi @Derson5 @dldx @EdenSG @camponez @Erkan-Yilmaz @Fil @gyulaweber @shakna-israel @flibustier @justinwiley @kseistrup @MRoci @sexybiggetje @BoboTiG @medimatrix @Nodeswitch @Ornataweaver @adrelanos @quasiyoke @Radtoo @RedbHawk @rcmorano @rubo77 @SuperSandro2000 @Thunder33345 @anonym @beigexperience @blurHY @dqwyy @eduaddad @goofy-mdn @krikmo @leycec @mnlg @mymage @probonopd @saber28
Just some useful information for people:
Sometimes open-source software projects get stuck in a license incompatibility situation. Often the only feasible way to resolve this situation is re-licensing of all participating software parts. For successful relicensing the agreement of all involved copyright holders, typically the developers, to a changed license is required. While in the free and open-source domain achieving 100% coverage of all authors is often impossible due to the many contributors involved, often it is assumed that a great majority is sufficient. For instance, Mozilla assumed an author coverage of 95% to be sufficient.[4] Others in the FOSS domain, as Eric S. Raymond, came to different conclusions regarding the requirements for relicensing of a whole code base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_relicensing
Additionally, if you want to find out more about different licenses, http://tldrlegal.com seems to be a decent resource.
Maybe.. but we shouldn't be dictating completely what people can choose from, because they have to choose it for themselves (legally). Also, I didn't really add that many more choices.
Basically, what I'm saying is if people naturally fall into a consensus regarding what they actutally want, then more choices doesn't matter. But if we are getting a consensus with less options but not a consensus with more options, then that just means we're kinda shoehorning people into a consensus when that's not what they really want.
The more important change in this update though was to clarify any ambiguity (this is important for legal reasons, along with understandability reasons), so I replaced "Apache" and "Apache-compatible" with "Lax" and was explicit about "Lax" not including the Public Domain.
Btw, polite discussion on licenses are welcome and you can change your vote at any time by posting another comment.
@sirMackk @ysc3839 @mkg20001 @xfq @6543 @d14na @camponez @kseistrup @eduaddad @probonopd @skwerlman
I have just noticed that you voted for GPLv3+ . I want to make sure that the GPL options were clear enough, so let me explain it again:
- GPLv3-only allows us to license the project under the standard GPLv3 license
- GPLv3+ allows us to license the project under "GPLv3 or later" but not the standard GPLv3 license
- GPLv3 allows us to use either "GPLv3 or later" or the standard GPLv3 license, whatever we find better or more compatible
Relicensing as GPLv3 and Lax would be needed in case we make ZeroNet more modularized (#2063) in the future. In this case, ZeroNet libraries (protocol handling and other more low-level things) would then be licensed as Lax license (MIT/BSD). Complete ZeroNet program would then be licensed as GPLv3.
This could help making ZeroNet more popular as developers would have already-created modular libraries for extending/building with ZeroNet. Lax license would be needed as such licenses (MIT/BSD) have the ability to be used in most other licenses, so developers won't have to worry about license compatibility so much.
@goofy-mdn Just to make sure: choosing Lax means that we'll have to rewrite all libraries and make others support Lax as well, or remove your contributions. Are you fine with that?
Here's another thought: whoever is licensing their work under lax licenses (i'm really just skipping through possible legal implications of formulating it like that, but oh well) gives anyone ability to license whole work under GPL (v3 in case of apache), however that would require some work on proper licensing every bit (if anyone cares, that is). In a similar vein, licensing a piece of code under GPLv3+ allows others to use/distribute/modify it under GPLv3 only.
@sirMackk @ysc3839 @mkg20001 @xfq @6543 @d14na @camponez @kseistrup @eduaddad @probonopd @skwerlman
I have just noticed that you voted for GPLv3+ . I want to make sure that the GPL options were clear enough, so let me explain it again:
- GPLv3-only allows us to license the project under the standard GPLv3 license
- GPLv3+ allows us to license the project under "GPLv3 or later" but not the standard GPLv3 license
- GPLv3 allows us to use either "GPLv3 or later" or the standard GPLv3 license, whatever we find better or more compatible
I'm not sure why that needed explanation.... but my vote is the same.
I only did 1 trivial commit so I don't think I should have a say. I am just commenting so you can cross me off.
I only did 1 trivial commit so I don't think I should have a say. I am just commenting so you can cross me off.
+1
GPLv3-only and Lax Because who knows what GPLv4 and up will contain, now that RMS has left the FSF
GPLv3-only and Lax Because who knows what GPLv4 and up will contain, now that RMS has left the FSF
We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
GPLv3+ allows for auto-upgrade to later versions. Honestly, I don't see why anyone would ever want that. If someone could explain this, that'd be useful.
I only did 1 trivial commit so I don't think I should have a say. I am just commenting so you can cross me off.
Same.
@krixano I agree. Let's imagine that eg. GPLv4 license forbids usage of GPLv4 licensed software on non-free OSes (I know it's ridiculous, but it's just an example). In case of an auto-upgrade, most contributors may not even agree for such thing, but it may be changed without ZeroNet community's common consensus on that (maybe even the project would be forced to do so, but I don't pretend to be a lawyer, so it'd be great if someone could clarify this).
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would ever want that. If someone could explain this, that'd be useful.
To avoid this sort of issue altogether, essentially.
maybe even the project would be forced to do so
Of course not. GPLv3+ means that anyone is free to choose any of licenses that fall under "version 3 or later.." definition. You can take it and limit version you redistribute to GPLv3, GPLv4, GPLv4+ or even something weird like "GPLv3 or GPLv5".
Btw, for some reason the bot displays my vote under "passing" and my name in the main list appears as if unvoted.
Of course not. GPLv3+ means that anyone is free to choose any of licenses that fall under "version 3 or later.." definition. You can take it and limit version you redistribute to GPLv3, GPLv4, GPLv4+ or even something weird like "GPLv3 or GPLv5".
Hm.... that means that forks can choose to upgrade, but contributors can't force the original repo to upgrade? If so, then that's much better than what I originally thought
Btw, for some reason the bot displays my vote under "passing" and my name in the main list appears as if unvoted.
Thanks we'll look into this.
@caryoscelus That's now fixed. There was a problem with a space next to your username which the bot didn't recognize.
I don't want to feed the troll but still.
I see that antifa is now blocked and his issues, reports about the license was closed, his pull request also was closed.
Take a look at @LiberateZeroNet's registration time: a few minutes ago. @HelloZeroNet Can we block this clone please?
@Fil @rcmorano @BoboTiG @AceLewis @MRoci @anoadragon453 @artemmolotov I have just added the "I don't care" option. I want to keep this as legal as possible so I would kindly ask you all to comment "I don't care" to make sure you are recorded. Additionally, using comments will help us do some statistics.
@0x6a73 while i can understand your frustration, can we please have a civilized discussion here?
It doesn't matter whether antifa and LiberateZeroNet are the same person(s) or not, but clearly they are either ignorant (but good willing) or specifically working against community and perhaps specifically trying to provoke such a reaction
@caryoscelus Sorry, I've got a bit too aggressive here. I still insist on limiting very new accounts (eg. younger than 7 days) from voting on this. Of course, it won't influence the core license conflict voting, but it may influence the "Passing people" list, most probably included in the statistics of community approval/disapproval.
but it may influence the "Passing people" list, most probably included in the statistics of community approval/disapproval.
We've decided not to include "passing people" in the stats, but if anyone wants to tell us why we should change this, we can change it.
@cclauss I have just noticed that you suggested using Apache License 2.0. Whilst being permissive is important, this means that we'll have some problems with other contributors who have voted for GPL only. I'm not sure whether you would allow us to use your work under GPLv3 and Lax or something similar, but it'd be cool if you did -- we'd have to do a lot less work.
My philosophy is that I hate licenses that prevent software developers from making 💰. I have always published my own repos under A2 because it has nice properties. I have always associated GNU Licenses with copyleft which encourages software developers to work hard but earn less than the cleaning staff. I will switch my vote to GPLv3+ but I ask all of you to please work hard to ensure that contributors to this project are not prevented from making a profit from their efforts.
@cclauss In this case, please switch to "GPLv3+ and Lax". If you do this, and if your code is appropriate for usage as ZeroNet libraries, it will be probably licensed as Lax (MIT/BSD) license. This will also make other developers easier to use ZeroNet in their projects as they won't have to worry about licenses and will still be able to make non-GPL projects with core ZeroNet libraries. However, the license for ZeroNet as whole program will probably be GPL.
P.S. If you want to change vote, you need to have separate comment as this is how bot works I think.
The original post says that we already have Apache2 and GPLv3 dependencies. It says nothing about us having any BSD dependencies or MIT dependencies. If we interpret Lax as Apache2 then I would consider voting that way but I see not reason to go with BSD or MIT if we have no dependencies using those licenses.
There is no "GPLv3 and Apache2" option currently but I think that "GPLv3 and Lax" will satisfy you. I don't see how Apache 2.0 is radically different from MIT or 2/3-clause BSD, so I think I am fine with using Apache 2.0 (if @HelloZeroNet doesn't disagree).
@brunogarciavaz Please post a single "I don't care" comment to make the bot recognize your vote.
@cclauss Post only mentions currently incompatible licences. But there are also some MIT and BSD-licenced dependencies. Also, reason for using MIT/BSD is that it is more compatible with other licenses than Apache 2 which would be important and using ZeroNet in other projects.
@imachug MIT/BSD/ISC licenses don't differ too much from each other. However, Apache additionally provides some patent lawsuit protection (it's a bit controversive in some other projects though, eg. OpenBSD can't accept any software licensed with Apache v2 to its base system because certain actions can make you unable to use the software, which is against their goals).
Here's an explaination of why using Apache might not be a good idea, from OpenBSD's copyright page:
Source: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
It's a purely moral choice though (because you can mix Apache v2 and other permissive licenses AFAIK), so it's all up to you.
@rarbg I saw that you showed up on antifa's repository. Can you make a vote here please?
@artemmolotov In order for your comment to be accepted by the bot, you have to post it as a single-line comment, without any additional text.