Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Contributor Agreement for License Change #2271

Closed
ZeroNetTickBot opened this issue Nov 3, 2019 · 22 comments
Closed

Contributor Agreement for License Change #2271

ZeroNetTickBot opened this issue Nov 3, 2019 · 22 comments

Comments

@ZeroNetTickBot
Copy link

ZeroNetTickBot commented Nov 3, 2019

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 8 comments:

  • GPLv3 and Apache if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or to GPLv3-only or an Apache-compatible license
  • GPLv3+ and Apache if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or an Apache-compatible license
  • GPLv3-only and Apache if you accept switching to either GPLv3-only or an Apache-compatible 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
  • Apache if you accept switching to an Apache-compatible license
  • None if you don't accept changing license

Accepting the first case is recommended: GPLv3 ("and later" or "-only") would be used for ZeroNet core and Apache-compatible licenses would be used for libraries.

Switching to Apache-compatible license 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: "Apache-compatible licenses" here refers to any license that is compatible with the Apache-2 license that is used by ZeroNet dependencies. This includes MIT license, BSD 2/3 clause licenses, and ISC.

Contributor list

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.

  • @0x6a73: GPLv3-only and Apache
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

GPLv3-only and Apache

@cclauss
Copy link
Contributor

cclauss commented Nov 3, 2019

Apache

@ghost ghost mentioned this issue Nov 3, 2019
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

GPLv3-only and Apache

@caryoscelus
Copy link
Contributor

GPLv3+

@filips123
Copy link
Contributor

GPLv3 and Apache

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

For people who want to know more about these licenses... I find http://tldrlegal.com to be a pretty decent resource.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

Polite discussion about different licenses is also welcome here, just make sure it's in a separate comment from one that you are voting in.

You can also change your mind about your vote by posting a new vote which will overwrite your previous vote. Do not edit your original post (the bot cannot detect this)

@caryoscelus
Copy link
Contributor

FWIW, relicensing to GPLv2+ would be enough. Effective license would be GPLv3, of course, but technically there's no necessity to limit usage of v2 if somebody needs it (and can get rid of incompatible deps, but that's their problem)

@filips123
Copy link
Contributor

Relicensing as GPLv3 and Apache-compatible 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 Apache-compatible 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. Apache-compatible 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.

@vitorio
Copy link
Contributor

vitorio commented Nov 3, 2019

GPLv3 and Apache

@caryoscelus
Copy link
Contributor

Notice: "Apache-compatible licenses" here refers to both MIT license and BSD 2/3 clause licenses.

Honestly, this is unnecessary confusion. If the poll is about switching to MIT or BSD licenses, it should be written as such, not "Apache". All of these are different albeit pretty compatible licenses, putting them under Apache umbrella doesn't seem to make much sense

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

The reason we did that is because we are using Apache-licensed dependencies. This is why we can only use "Apache-compatible" licenses. GPLv3 is also Apache-compatible (GPLv2 is not)

@mkg20001
Copy link
Contributor

mkg20001 commented Nov 3, 2019

GPLv3+ and Apache

@OliverCole
Copy link
Contributor

GPLv3 and Apache

@anoadragon453
Copy link
Contributor

I leave my decision up to @shortcutme

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

@caryoscelus Ok, I edited the main post to clarify what you were talking about a little.

But, I'm gonna guess you probably want the ability for people to be able to specify which Apache-compatible license they want? We can add that option once @imachug is back on.

The thing is, are Apache, MIT, BSD, and ISC really that different to warrant this change?

@filips123
Copy link
Contributor

@anoadragon453 This can be considered as "any license" or "I don't care", right?

@krixano Bot currently does not support this. But can "GPLv3 and Apache" be also considered as this? If so, @anoadragon453 can update vote to this. If not, @imachug probably need to implement "Any license" option.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

That's a good point @filips123 .

The difference is "any license" would include things incompatible with our current dependencies, while "GPLv3 and Apache" is saying you don't care as long as it's compatible with current ZeroNet deps that use Apache-2 license.

@caryoscelus
Copy link
Contributor

The thing is, are Apache, MIT, BSD, and ISC really that different to warrant this change?

Apache is different from MIT/BSD (and i'm guessing ISC is variation of the same idea) in that it has some sort of patent protection.

But no, i don't care as much to suggest someone should make a poll on that; i was merely talking about confusion this one is making. Besides arbitrarity of using "Apache" to represent what is often referred to as "lax licenses", lack of precision may be interpreted in unexpected ways. I'm pretty sure CC0 is Apache-compatible; do people who write "Apache" imply they agree to releasing their contribution under it?

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

@caryoscelus Is CC0 Apache-compatible? Can you use an apache dependency inside of a CC0 work? I wouldn't have thought that you can

Anyways, If this is the case, then maybe we should fix this stuff and redo the poll? I can try to quickly fix this.

@ZeroNetTickBot
Copy link
Author

Ok, I'm closing this issue everyone, and we're going to redo the whole Poll. Some problems arose. I will have a fix up hopefully in a few hours.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 3, 2019

Ok, everyone who voted here, please vote again in the new issue #2273

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants