Zeronet: Contributor Agreement for License Change

[ZeroNetTickBot]

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

• [ ] @shortcutme
• [ ] @HelloZeroNet
• [ ] @imachug
• [ ] @rllola
• [ ] @tangdou1
• [ ] @TheNain38
• [ ] @jerry-wolf
• [ ] @radfish
• [ ] @MuxZeroNet
• [ ] @matthewrobertbell
• [ ] @grez911
• [ ] @sirMackk
• [ ] @Idealcoder
• [ ] @rainlime
• [ ] @ysc3839
• [ ] @barrabinfc
• [ ] @0polar
• [x] @filips123: GPLv3 and Apache
• [x] @cclauss: Apache
• [ ] @DaniellMesquita
• [ ] @anoadragon453
• [ ] @n3r0-ch
• [x] @OliverCole: GPLv3 and Apache
• [ ] @Th3B3st
• [ ] @geekless
• [ ] @cxgreat2014
• [ ] @erqan
• [ ] @iShift
• [x] @mkg20001: GPLv3+ and Apache
• [ ] @krzotr
• [x] @krixano: GPLv3-only and Apache
• [ ] @nathantym
• [ ] @Emeraude
• [ ] @frerepoulet
• [ ] @aitorpazos
• [ ] @jTeego
• [ ] @yowmamasita
• [ ] @reezer
• [ ] @danielquinn
• [ ] @HostFat
• [ ] @JeremyRand
• [ ] @volker48
• [ ] @tormath1
• [ ] @rarbg
• [ ] @ppsfassa
• [ ] @brunogarciavaz
• [x] @caryoscelus: GPLv3+
• [ ] @hugbubby
• [ ] @mishfit
• [x] @vitorio: GPLv3 and Apache
• [ ] @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
• [ ] @rwv
• [ ] @sinkuu
• [ ] @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] @0x6a73: GPLv3-only and Apache

[krixano]

GPLv3-only and Apache

[cclauss]

Apache

[ghost]

GPLv3-only and Apache

[caryoscelus]

GPLv3+

[filips123]

GPLv3 and Apache

[krixano]

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

[krixano]

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]

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]

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]

GPLv3 and Apache

[caryoscelus]

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

[krixano]

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]

GPLv3+ and Apache

[OliverCole]

GPLv3 and Apache

[anoadragon453]

I leave my decision up to @shortcutme

[krixano]

@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]

@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.

[krixano]

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]

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?

[krixano]

@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]

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.

[krixano]

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