Zeronet: Contributor Agreement for License Change [Updated]

[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 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+

[krixano]

GPLv3-only and Lax

[vitorio]

GPLv3 and Lax

[skwerlman]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[mkg20001]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[krixano]

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

[krixano]

@rwv @sinkuu @zwgshr

[kseistrup]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[camponez]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[ysc3839]

GPLv3+

[d14na]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[krixano]

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

[krixano]

Additionally, if you want to find out more about different licenses, http://tldrlegal.com seems to be a decent resource.

[probonopd]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[sirMackk]

GPLv3+

[OliverCole]

GPLv3 and Lax

[eduardoaddad]

GPLv3+

[xfq]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[cclauss]

Fewer choices was far better for achieving consensus.

[krixano]

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.

[6543]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[krixano]

Btw, polite discussion on licenses are welcome and you can change your vote at any time by posting another comment.

[imachug]

GPLv3 and Lax

[imachug]

@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

[filips123]

GPLv3 and Lax

[imachug]

GPLv3-only and Lax

[filips123]

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]

Lax

[imachug]

@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?

[ghost]

Lax

[catthehacker]

Lax

[imachug]

Are you all sure guys?

[ghost]

GPLv3-only and Lax

[cclauss]

Apache2

[Fil]

whatever the project decides is fine with me

[SuperSandro2000]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[rcmorano]

whatever the project decides is fine with me

+1

[reezer]

GPLv3 and Lax

[sexybiggetje]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[BoboTiG]

Choose what is best for you, I really have no issue with that ;)

[Thunder33345]

Lax

[caryoscelus]

GPLv3+

[caryoscelus]

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.

[camponez]

@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.

[AceLewis]

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.

[megfault]

GPLv3 and Lax

[MRoci]

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

[kseistrup]

GPLv3+

[danielquinn]

GPLv3+

[Idealcoder]

GPLv3+

[anoadragon453]

Whatever @HelloZeroNet wants.

[beigexperience]

GPLv3 and Lax

[blazercrypter]

GPLv3-only and Lax
Because who knows what GPLv4 and up will contain, now that RMS has left the FSF

[beigexperience]

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.

[krixano]

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.

[artemmolotov]

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.

[ghost]

@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).

[caryoscelus]

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.

[mymage]

GPLv3 and Lax

[krixano]

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.

[rubo77]

GPLv3 and Lax

[ghost]

@caryoscelus Thanks for clarifying.

[sinkuu]

GPLv3 and Lax

[imachug]

@caryoscelus That's now fixed. There was a problem with a space next to your username which the bot didn't recognize.

[krixano]

GPLv3 and Lax

[imachug]

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?

[imachug]

@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.

[imachug]

GPLv3 and Lax

[caryoscelus]

@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

[ghost]

@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.

[krixano]

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.

[ghost]

@krixano Oh, ok. I don't have any complaints left then.

[valkheim]

GPLv3+

[imachug]

@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.

[brunogarciavaz]

whatever the project decides is fine with me

Idem. I don't care

[cclauss]

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.

[filips123]

@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.

[cclauss]

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.

[imachug]

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).

[imachug]

@brunogarciavaz Please post a single "I don't care" comment to make the bot recognize your vote.

[filips123]

@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.

[ghost]

@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).

[ghost]

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.

[cclauss]

GPLv3+

[imachug]

Huge thanks.

[BoboTiG]

I don't care.

[AceLewis]

I don't care

[brunogarciavaz]

I don't care

[zasei]

I don't care

[flibustier]

GPLv3 and Lax

[Nephos]

I don't care

[alopexc0de]

GPLv3-only and Lax

[iShift]

I don't care

[imachug]

@rarbg I saw that you showed up on antifa's repository. Can you make a vote here please?

[blurHY]

GPLv3+

[Fil]

I don't care

[rwv]

I don't care

[anonym]

I don't care

[imachug]

@artemmolotov Please post your option as a single-line comment.

[ghost]

@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.

[artemmolotov]

I don't care

[Radtoo]

GPLv3 and Lax

[filips123]

This would be how a process of resolving licenses and modularization of ZeroNet could/would probably look like if "GPLv3 and Lax" is chosen:

1. First, ZeroNet is just re-licensed to GPLv3 to resolve all current incompatibilities.

2. Then, we (here I mean ZeroNet maintainers and contributions) start working on modularization.

3. During that, new contributions are asked (while making their PR) for simple CLA to give as the ability to re-license their work as MIT/Lax license if their work would be later used on ZeroNet core libraries.

4. ZeroNet is then modularized into multiple libraries/packages. Core libraries that can be used for building third-party Zeronet-based solutions are licensed under MIT/Lax license which gives developers the ability to use them easily. Main ZeroNet program (as a whole like it is currently) remains licensed under GPLv3 as it is not meant to be frequently reused in third-party solutions.

5. In case if there are some MIT-incompatible libraries which need to be used in the MIT-licensed part of ZeroNet, we try to resolve this. In the worst case, we find alternative libraries which are also compatible with MIT and GPLv3.

This process could take quite a long time. However, it would be good for the future development of ZeroNet as a project and also ZeroNet as a solution for third-party projects. And unlike some users says (actually it is one person with multiple spamming accounts), this won't make ZeroNet more restricted/proprietary/etc.

@HelloZeroNet @imachug @krixano What do you think?

[d14na]

4. ZeroNet is then modularized into multiple libraries/packages.

+1

5. In the worst case, we find alternative libraries which are also compatible with MIT and GPLv3.

+1

This process could take quite a long time. However, it would be good for the future development of ZeroNet as a project and also ZeroNet as a solution for third-party projects.

+1

__all great things!__

[quasiyoke]

GPLv3 and Lax

[imachug]

Just in case someone didn't receive a notification or ignored it, I'm pinging again:

@rllola @tangdou1 @TheNain38 @jerry-wolf @radfish @MuxZeroNet @matthewrobertbell @grez911 @rainlime @barrabinfc @0polar @DaniellMesquita @anoadragon453 @n3r0-ch @Th3B3st @geekless @cxgreat2014 @erqan @krzotr @nathantym @Emeraude @frerepoulet @aitorpazos @jTeego @yowmamasita @HostFat @JeremyRand @volker48 @tormath1 @rarbg @ppsfassa @hugbubby @mishfit @ajmeese7 @Austin-Williams @bencevans @thesoftwarejedi @Derson5 @dldx @EdenSG @Erkan-Yilmaz @gyulaweber @shakna-israel @justinwiley @MRoci @medimatrix @Nodeswitch @Ornataweaver @adrelanos @RedbHawk

[imachug]

@rcmorano @dqwyy @krikmo @leycec @mnlg @saber28 @zwgshr

[matthewrobertbell]

I don't care

[adrelanos]

I don't care

[MRoci]

GPLv3+

[n3r0-ch]

I don't care

[volker48]

I don't care

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:00 AM Felix Imobersteg [e-mail]
wrote:

I don't care

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAQ6R2D6O6WVLVZYPBLBATQSLLXTA5CNFSM4JINS2L2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDG2J3A#issuecomment-550348012,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAQ6R6BSTI4RIX5BVE5J7TQSLLXTANCNFSM4JINS2LQ
.

[ghost]

GPLv3+

[ghost]

A few more vote for GPLv3+ and you can close the voting! :fireworks: :champagne:

[krixano]

Actually, this isn't based on majority vote I don't think. We have to have a full consensus, or near-full consensus of all contributors (Mozilla got away with 95% consensus with Firefox's license change)

[krixano]

@zeronettimemachine I mean, afaik, legally, we can't force people into changing the license their contributions are under, even if by majority.

[krixano]

Yep, looks like zeronettimemachine is the next user created by hacktivist / antifa / LiberateZeroNet / etc.

[krixano]

sigh classic strawman. Anyways, this should tell you very clearly:

[JeremyRand]

It's not clear to me why both of the following are listed:

• GPLv3+ if you accept switching to GPLv3 or later
• GPLv3 if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or to GPLv3-only"

Both of these are legally equivalent, because any software that is licensed under GPLv3+ (3 or later) can be re-licensed under GPLv3 (3 only) without any further authorization from the copyright holder.

Are you intending to overload this poll by simultaneously asking what licenses the authors' work is under, and asking what licenses the author politely recommends that the ZeroNet maintainers relicense it under? Because that seems like a bad combination of things to put into a single poll.

[skwerlman]

It's not clear to me why both of the following are listed:

GPLv3+ if you accept switching to GPLv3 or later
GPLv3 if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or to GPLv3-only"

the difference is that when specifically voting GPLv3+, you are saying you do not want a GLPv3-only license, where the other means you'd be fine relicensing to GPLv3-only or GPLv3+
sure, a GPLv3+ repo can be relicensed later to GPLv3-only, but at the least the current version could be forked into a GPLv4 version if that happened. in a GPLv3-only repo, there's no way to go back, even using older commits, so the difference is whether being able to go to GPLv4 at all matters to you

[krixano]

Both of these are legally equivalent, because any software that is licensed under GPLv3+ (3 or later) can be re-licensed under GPLv3 (3 only) without any further authorization from the copyright holder

How about give people the benefit of the doubt? Whether GPLv3+ is equivalent to GPLv3 is irrelevant. We wanted to make sure there was as many options as possible because we shouldn't be shoehorning people's votes - are you suggesting that we be dishonest by limiting peoples choices? That's illegal, btw.

[imachug]

If someone chooses GPLv3 and we decide to license ZeroNet under GPLv3-only, you won't be able to distribute ZeroNet under GPLv4.

If someone chooses GPLv3+, we won't be able to license ZeroNet under GPLv3-only. Instead, we'd have to license the project under GPLv3+, and then maybe if it's legal fork ZeroNet under GPLv3; but you'll sitll be able to distribute ZeroNet under GPLv4.

[JeremyRand]

It's not clear to me why both of the following are listed:
GPLv3+ if you accept switching to GPLv3 or later
GPLv3 if you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or to GPLv3-only"

the difference is that when specifically voting GPLv3+, you are saying you do not want a GLPv3-only license, where the other means you'd be fine relicensing to GPLv3-only or GPLv3+
sure, a GPLv3+ repo can be relicensed later to GPLv3-only, but at the least the current version could be forked into a GPLv4 version if that happened. in a GPLv3-only repo, there's no way to go back, even using older commits, so the difference is whether being able to go to GPLv4 at all matters to you

@skwerlman I think you are missing my point. I am not asking about the difference between GPLv3-only and GPLv3+; that difference is obvious. I am asking why you have a 3rd option, which says both GPLv3-only and GPLv3+ are fine, when that 3rd option is legally identical to GPLv3+.

[krixano]

Are you intending to overload this poll by simultaneously asking what licenses the authors' work is under, and asking what licenses the author politely recommends that the ZeroNet maintainers relicense it under? Because that seems like a bad combination of things to put into a single poll.

Are you saying that a person who wants an open source project to relicence to a specific license won't allow their contributions to match that license? Does that even make any sense?

The poll is about you relicensing your contributions so that ZeroNet can be relicensed as a whole. If a person suggests a different license for ZeroNet but then doesn't release their contributions under that same license, then isn't that precisely equivalent to not wanting ZeroNet to relicense?

[JeremyRand]

@krixano Could you please clarify why you posted the following and then deleted it?

This vote is very clearly only about the latter. I don't know how you thought the former was even a think... it doesn't make any sense.

[krixano]

Because I misunderstood what you were saying.

[skwerlman]

@JeremyRand the difference is that while GPLv3-only and GPLv3+ are votes for _those specific license variants_, a vote for GPLv3 indicates you are fine with either variant

[krixano]

I think it's become clear to me now that you think my intentions are bad for some reason... If that's so, then maybe I should withdraw from ZeroNet completely, because I'm just about fed up with hostile people (especially the whole thing concerning antifa aka. hacktivist, LiberateZeroNet, and whatever other username he's breaking GitHub's TOS and the law in multiple countries with).

2248

[JeremyRand]

How about give people the benefit of the doubt? Whether GPLv3+ is equivalent to GPLv3 is irrelevant. We wanted to make sure there was as many options as possible because we shouldn't be shoehorning people's votes - are you suggesting that we be dishonest by limiting peoples choices? That's illegal, btw.

@krixano If you're trying to tell me that it's dishonest and illegal to not list duplicate options, then I honestly don't know how to respond to that claim. If you're instead trying to say that you think there is actually a difference between the two options I asked about, I'd appreciate it if you could explain what you think that difference is instead of making vague scary references to illegality.

(I get that you may be in a touchy mood because of people who aren't me, but I'd really appreciate it if you not take that out on me; I'm here to help, not get into a fight.)

[krixano]

I'm telling you it's dishonest to limit people's choices. Secondly, you're trying to claim that having duplicate options is "overloading" a poll and it seems to me you are alluding to bad intentions.

[krixano]

And other people have already clarified what the differences are.

[krixano]

I'm telling you it's dishonest to limit people's choices.

Let me clarify. Previously I said to give people the benefit of the doubt. I next said it's illegal and dishonest to limit people's choices.

Here's what I'm trying to get at.... If there are duplicate options, it's because I wanted to make sure that everything was covered, not because I'm trying to confuse people.

[JeremyRand]

I'm telling you it's dishonest to limit people's choices. Secondly, you're trying to claim that having duplicate options is "overloading" a poll and it seems to me you are alluding to bad intentions.

What allusion to bad intentions are you referencing? I have no idea what you mean here.

An "overloaded poll" has a straightforward definition; it's a single poll question that is designed to determine the answer to more than one question. It's usually considered poor poll design. There's nothing in what I said that's related to bad intentions. My assumption is that there was no bad intention, just that whoever wrote the poll didn't understand how relicensing of GPLv3+ to GPLv3-only works.

[krixano]

You said "intending to overload the poll". As far as I'm aware, "intending" implies the person wanted to overload the poll on purpose. It's called a loaded question.

[JeremyRand]

You said "intending to overload the poll". As far as I'm aware, "intending" implies the person wanted to overload the poll on purpose.

@krixano My wording doesn't imply any accusation of malice. I was asking whether the poll was designed to answer 2 questions (the licenses that the author agrees to license their own work under, and what licenses the author politely recommends that the ZeroNet devs relicense it to), which would suggest that the poll author might be making a mistake by combining them into a single question, or if it was only intended to answer the former question (which would suggest that the poll author might be making a mistake about how relicensing works). I'm sorry if you inferred that there was an accusation of malice there, but I was not suggesting that any malice was at play.

[krixano]

Ok, fine. But you questioning me deleting part of my comment felt like an attack.

Anyways, as I said previously, I think both questions are the same:

Are you saying that a person who wants an open source project to relicence to a specific license won't allow their contributions to match that license? Does that even make any sense?

The poll is about you relicensing your contributions so that ZeroNet can be relicensed as a whole. If a person suggests a different license for ZeroNet but then doesn't release their contributions under that same license, then isn't that precisely equivalent to not wanting ZeroNet to relicense?

[JeremyRand]

@krixano Also, I don't know if this is the case, but I hope you're not letting the resident troll succeed at instigating tensions between us. I assume that's his goal; I'm not interested in taking his bait.

[JeremyRand]

Ok, fine. But you questioning me deleting part of my comment felt like an attack.

@krixano I genuinely wasn't sure why it was deleted. The part that you deleted read to me like an attack on me, but rather than reply in a hostile manner, I preferred to ask why it was deleted. You said that you misunderstood me, and so I dropped the topic. I'm not looking for a fight here.

Anyways, as I said previously, I think both questions _are the same_:

Are you saying that a person who wants an open source project to relicence to a specific license won't allow their contributions to match that license? Does that even make any sense?
The poll is about you relicensing your contributions so that ZeroNet can be relicensed as a whole. If a person suggests a different license for ZeroNet but then doesn't release their contributions under that same license, then isn't that precisely equivalent to not wanting ZeroNet to relicense?

The questions are related but not identical. Specifically, a user can license their own work under a superset of the licenses that they are recommending that ZeroNet choose to use. That's the point I was trying to convey (and it empirically appears that I did not do a good job of explaining this): the overloaded interpretation of the poll question looked to me like this:

• "GPLv3": I agree to license my own contributions under GPLv3+, but I politely recommend that ZeroNet choose to relicense them under GPLv3-only. EDIT: Or, I don't have any preference between GPLv3+ and GPLv3-only.
• "GPLv3+": I agree to license my own contributions under GPLv3+, and I politely recommend that ZeroNet choose to keep them under GPLv3+ in whatever work they do.

Both of these options are legally equivalent in terms of what ZeroNet's maintainers are authorized to do without infringing copyright. They are different in terms of what the author is recommending that ZeroNet maintainers do, which is solely up to the ZeroNet maintainers. That's why I asked about whether this was an overloaded poll question -- these are both very valid questions to be asking (what can ZeroNet legally do, and what is ZeroNet recommended to do), but it wasn't clear to me if the question was intended to cover both of them, or if there was some confusion about whether GPLv3+ code can be re-licensed to GPLv3-only.

Does that make more sense?

[imachug]

Actually, I'm not sure whether the GPLv3+ option allows us to license contributions under GPLv3-only. I thought that ZeroNet is not a work derived from contributions, but contributions are a part of ZeroNet. So if contributors force us to use GPLv3+, we'll have to license ZeroNet under GPLv3+ as well so people would be able to distribute/use ZeroNet under e.g. GPLv4.

[skwerlman]

Both of these options are legally equivalent in terms of what ZeroNet's maintainers are authorized to do without infringing copyright.

this is not exactly correct. with a GPLv3+ vote, the code can ONLY be relicensed (in the initial relicensing commit) to GPLv3+. this guarantees a checkpoint that we can use to advance to v4 if wanted. with a GPLv3 vote, that checkpoint is not guaranteed, since the initial commit can be GPLv3-only

[JeremyRand]

Actually, I'm not sure whether the GPLv3+ option allows us to license contributions under GPLv3-only. I thought that ZeroNet is not a work derived from contributions, _but_ contributions are a part of ZeroNet. So if contributors force us to use GPLv3+, we'll have to license ZeroNet under GPLv3+ as well so people would be able to distribute/use ZeroNet under e.g. GPLv4.

@imachug Okay, so it does sound like there is some confusion here.

It is completely okay to use GPLv3+-licensed code in a GPLv3-only project. In the same way, old Firefox code was licensed under both GPLv2 and MPLv1, but it was fine to use that code under your choice of either of the two licenses. The end result will be that the GPLv3+-licensed contributions can be reused in GPLv4 projects, but the combined work of the GPLv3+-licensed contributions with the GPLv3-only-licensed contributions is only usable under GPLv3. The important point here is that the contributor only has direct control over their contributions' license; the project maintainers can re-license the combined work it to any compatible license if they want to (re-licensing GPLv3+ to GPLv3-only is a compatible re-licensing), and they don't need the contributors' consent to do so (the licenses' compatibility implies consent), though they can definitely ask for their opinion.

[JeremyRand]

Both of these options are legally equivalent in terms of what ZeroNet's maintainers are authorized to do without infringing copyright.

this is not exactly correct. with a GPLv3+ vote, the code can ONLY be relicensed (in the initial relicensing commit) to GPLv3+. this guarantees a checkpoint that we can use to advance to v4 if wanted. with a GPLv3 vote, that checkpoint is not guaranteed, since the initial commit can be GPLv3-only

@skwerlman That is incorrect. GPLv3+ code can be relicensed to GPLv3-only. The converse does not hold, i.e. GPLv3-only code cannot be relicensed to GPLv3+ code.

[krixano]

Ok... so it's just a duplicate option then... so it doesn't matter which one a person chooses does it?

[krixano]

caryoscelus saw a problem in the other poll, but he did it early enough that I was able to restart the poll, but it's kinda hard to restart the poll now, isn't it?

[JeremyRand]

By the way, since it's a bad idea to trust random people on the Internet (even nice people like me), here's a citation. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

Note the 1st column, 2nd row of the table, where it says that GPLv2+ code can be copied into GPLv2-only code. (v3 and v2 behave the same way here; it's the "or later" clause that's important.)

[krixano]

I'm gonna be honest here... this is just way too complicated imo, so it's kinda making me never want to use GPL ever again and just use simple permissive licenses, lol

[JeremyRand]

caryoscelus saw a problem in the other poll, but he did it early enough that I was able to restart the poll, but it's kinda hard to restart the poll now, isn't it?

@krixano I don't see any reason to restart the poll over this; I simply was looking for clarification on whether my vote was implicitly answering two questions (i.e. whether it's a recommendation to what I'd like the ZeroNet maintainers to do) or a single question (in which I can just pick either of them since they're equivalent).

[skwerlman]

ok, i see where i was wrong. i was thinking it was the repo relicensing when actually its the individual commiters relicensing, so there's no commit tied to their choice, and therefore no checkpoint

:+1: for the link; i hadnt seen it before

[JeremyRand]

ok, i see where i was wrong. i was thinking it was the repo relicensing when actually its the individual commiters relicensing, so there's no commit tied to their choice, and therefore no checkpoint

+1 for the link; i hadnt seen it before

@skwerlman No worries man. This shit is complicated. Alas, law isn't easy. One of the reasons I'm not a lawyer. :)

[krixano]

@JeremyRand The problem that I'm seeing now is that the way we wrote the issue suggests that we are talking about what a person would like ZeroNet maintainers to do, but the intention should really be that you are relicensing your contributions. Idk....

[krixano]

The reason I thought it was the same question was because I was assuming that what a person wanted the ZeroNet maintainers to pick was the same as what they are relicensing their contributions to. But you seem to suggest that these can actually be different things?

[JeremyRand]

@JeremyRand The problem that I'm seeing now is that the way we wrote the issue suggests that we are talking about what a person would like ZeroNet maintainers to do, but the intention should really be that you are relicensing your contributions. Idk....

@krixano In my totally-not-legal-advice opinion, giving permission for a 3rd party to license your work under a given license is mostly equivalent to re-licensing that work yourself. There is arguably a difference in the sense that I can distribute my code to 2 people under 2 different licenses, and each person is bound by a different license, and whoever they distribute it to is bound by whatever license the person whom they got it from was bound by. But this distinction is basically meaningless in this case, so I wouldn't worry about it.

But yes, it is totally possible (and, I would argue, reasonable) for the ZeroNet maintainers to ask contributors to (1) state what licenses the ZeroNet maintainers are legally allowed to use, and (2) state a polite non-binding recommendation of which subset of (1) they'd like ZeroNet to go with. I think combining these two questions into a single question isn't ideal. But, since (1) is by far the most important, and (1) is the main question being asked in this poll, my opinion is that we're fine, and anyone who wants to answer (2) can do so informally in a free-form comment. After all, since (2) is a recommendation, it may be that the ZeroNet maintainers will want to take argumentation/reasoning into account rather than just tallying votes, since it's ultimately up to the ZeroNet maintainers what to do with respect to (2).

[krixano]

Ok... I just worry that when people voted they might have misunderstood what the poll was about and I don't want to count the votes for people who didn't answer the intended question but answered the question they interpreted.

[JeremyRand]

Ok... I just worry that when people voted they might have misunderstood what the poll was about and I don't want to count the votes for people who didn't answer the _intended_ question but answered the question they interpreted.

@krixano Well, look at it this way. If they accidentally voted for a recommended license instead of a permitted license, then the only harm that's been done is that ZeroNet maintainers might have fewer choices about what license they can pick. The recommended licenses are strictly a subset-or-equal set to the permitted licenses, so I don't think there's any risk of accidentally committing a license violation due to the confusion. Unless the ZeroNet maintainers decide that they really want to have more freedom than the final vote tally gives them, I don't think it's worth pestering the contributors to re-cast a vote.

[krixano]

Ok, thanks.

(p.s. I love how thumbs ups suddenly switched to thumbs downs, lol)

[JeremyRand]

Since I guess we're now on the same page about what the votes mean, I guess I'll vote now. :)

[JeremyRand]

GPLv3+

[JeremyRand]

And, my polite non-binding recommendation is that keeping it as GPLv3+ is better than re-licensing to GPLv3-only.

[JeremyRand]

And, my polite non-binding recommendation is that keeping it as GPLv3+ is better than re-licensing to GPLv3-only.

But, given that GPLv3-only has a pretty large number of votes, it is entirely possible that the ZeroNet maintainers will decide that ignoring my recommendation is a desirable move since it allows them to avoid rewriting lots of code. I wouldn't fault them for such a decision.

[Idealcoder]

GPLv3

[JeremyRand]

As an aside, it's been a while since I looked at the Mozilla 95% decision, but my understanding is that the 95% figure means that you can relicense code whose developers are unreachable if it's less than 5% of the total codebase. If a developer is reachable and explicitly says they don't consent to a relicense, then their code cannot be relicensed regardless of the 95% rule [1].

If it looks like the details of this topic will matter to ZeroNet, feel free to let me know and I'll try to double-check whether my understanding is accurate.

[1] However, if their contribution is incredibly simple, e.g. a typofix, then it may be ineligible for copyright at all, in which case you can treat it as public-domain and you can use it in whatever code you want regardless of license.

[jerry-wolf]

GPLv3 and Lax

[ghost]

Off-topic: Since it seems like this issue is getting spammed with references in other repos, I'd recommend to just ignore these.

Also, it seems like he prepared a few more accounts(eg. @GNU ). I've already reported all of them and I advise you to do the exact same thing.

[krixano]

Just so people are aware, this referenced issue (https://github.com/HeIIoZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/1) is NOT nofish (as you can see on the profile - this user joined an hour ago). The user tried making it look official, but it isn't.

[filips123]

So smart. Using II and lI instead of ll in username:

• Original: HelloZeroNet
• Fake: HeIIoZeroNet
• Also fake: HelIoZeroNet
• Also fake: HeIloZeroNet

[JeremyRand]

Just so people are aware, this referenced issue (HeIIoZeroNet#1) is NOT nofish (as you can see on the profile - this user joined an hour ago). The user tried making it look official, but it isn't.

@krixano Indeed. For anyone reading this who's curious and hasn't seen this before, the name for this kind of attack is a homograph attack. It's pretty common in the DNS world.

[thesoftwarejedi]

Just so people are aware, this referenced issue (HeIIoZeroNet#1) is NOT nofish (as you can see on the profile - this user joined an hour ago). The user tried making it look official, but it isn't.

Confused me. Issue #1 with ZeroNet was mine! Hey all, long time no see.

[filips123]

@thesoftwarejedi That user (hacktivist/antifa) created "homograph attack" of HelloZeroNet username. It used II instead of ll but they look same on GitHub. The referenced issue was from that fake account.

[JeremyRand]

Just so people are aware, this referenced issue (HeIIoZeroNet#1) is NOT nofish (as you can see on the profile - this user joined an hour ago). The user tried making it look official, but it isn't.

Confused me. Issue #1 with ZeroNet was mine! Hey all, long time no see.

@thesoftwarejedi Good to see you; I think I recognize your username from crawling a bunch of ZeroNet sites. While you're here, I hope you'll cast a vote? :)

[ghost]

It seems like that guy is now spamming his stuff on Freenode's #zeronet channel. I thought you might be interested.

[filips123]

@0x6a73 Please save/log what he says.

[ghost]

@filips123 I'm logging everything right now, 24/7.

EDIT: logs - https://pastebin.com/XUUR6cMg

[krixano]

Ok, so antifa keeps on talking about the copyright of all collaborators being terminated because of the GPLv2 violation (maybe I misinterpreted him, idk...). Did a quick search, and here's the site that uses the exact line he keeps saying:

Community-oriented compliance processes should extend the benefit of GPLv3-like termination, even for GPLv2-only works. GPLv2 terminates all copyright permissions at the moment of violation, and that termination is permanent. GPLv3's termination provision allows first-time violators automatic restoration of distribution rights when they correct the violation promptly, and gives the violator a precise list of copyright holders whose forgiveness it needs. GPLv3's collaborative spirit regarding termination reflects a commitment to and hope for future cooperation and collaboration. It's a good idea to follow this approach in compliance situations stemming from honest mistakes, even when the violations are on works under GPLv2.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html

Now, to me this sounds like it could actually be meaning the copyright permission to use the libraries that are being violated, and NOT the copyrighted code belonging to the violating project. Some clarification and fact-checking would be nice if anybody knows anything about this.

[krixano]

Ok, so I just read the whole GPLv2 license. Here's the section that my previous quote is talking about, in section 4 of the license:

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

1.) Your "rights under this license" are terminated if you don't follow the terms and conditions. What are the rights this license provides? The ability to modify, distribute, and copy the program.
2.) People you have distributed to retain their rights so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Now... here's where it gets tricky, in section 2:

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

I think this means that the entire work as a whole must follow the license, but you still own the copyright to the "identifiable sections" of "work written entirely by you" (depending on copyright law of your country, hence the "claim rights or contest your rights")? I don't even know, lol. This part is just confusing.

[krixano]

2.) People you have distributed to retain their rights so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Now, what I wonder about this is if contributions are GPLv2 licensed but the libraries being used are GPLv3.... how can one remain in full compliance of both licenses. Does having a license violation mean that the GPLv2 license of the "identifiable sections" of "work written entirely by you" is terminated? And if so, doesn't this mean that this license is in fact contesting your rights "to work written entirely by you"? But yet it states that it isn't contesting that... so how can people who have been distributed ZeroNet remain in full compliance of both licenses (ZeroNet is GPLv2-only atm)?

[thesoftwarejedi]

Lol, what is this even? This project sure lost sight of its founding premise.

[krixano]

What do you mean? There's license incompatibilities and we are legally required to do something about this in order to continue to use the libraries in question and distribute ZeroNet

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.

As also explained in issue #2269

[krixano]

I mean... I'd rather ZeroNet remain up/usable and legal than be taken down or sued from licensing issues.

[ghost]

GPLv3+

[ghost]

Is this a manual voting? The bot is dead? :thinking: Reading this comments I guess there was never even a bot. :confused:

[imachug]

Oh god, @CyberSecurityEngineer we know you are antifa.

[ghost]

:astonished:

[imachug]

Thanks for telling me about the bot failure though! I've just restarted it.

UPD There, it works now.

[ghost]

There is other failure I can talk about like @krixano who calling me a liar. He even said (https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2269#issuecomment-552054895) that the code what @shortcutme merged is "non-completely" identical to the pull request. Funny, the guy who talks too much about copyright don't know that doesn't need to be completely identical at all to be considered a copyright infringement! It is called substantial similarity: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/substantial-similarity/glossary

Substantial similarity is a level of similarity that shows improper appropriation of the plaintiff’s work, one of the requirements for a prima facie infringement claim.

If I don't send the pull request than he don't implement it, right? If I don't report the license violations than there is no voting, right?

How one guy like @krixano can come to be judge in what is copyrightable and what is not? How you would feel if your pull request was stolen and no credit is given to you? I guess not so different than me.

:v:

[imachug]

Please remain on-topic and use chats for long conversations. I would recommend using IRC (#zeronet:freenode.net).

[filips123]

Funny, the guy who talks too much about copyright don't know that doesn't need to be completely identical at all to be considered a copyright infringement! It is called substantial similarity

So you own copyright for detecting and handling MIME types? Why then don't you sue Apache or other web servers which use the same way of handling MIME types?

Or even better, where is your proof that you didn't steal that code from Apache or another web server?

[imachug]

Please use IRC and remain on-topic here.

[imachug]

There are still some users who haven't replied. @rllola @tangdou1 @TheNain38 @radfish @MuxZeroNet @grez911 @rainlime @barrabinfc @0polar @DaniellMesquita @anoadragon453 @Th3B3st @geekless @cxgreat2014 @erqan @krzotr @nathantym @Emeraude @frerepoulet @aitorpazos @jTeego @yowmamasita @HostFat @tormath1 @rarbg @ppsfassa @hugbubby @mishfit @ajmeese7 @Austin-Williams @bencevans @thesoftwarejedi @Derson5 @dldx @EdenSG @Erkan-Yilmaz @gyulaweber @shakna-israel @justinwiley @medimatrix @Nodeswitch @Ornataweaver @RedbHawk @rcmorano @dqwyy @krikmo @leycec @mnlg @saber28 @zwgshr Pinging you again just in case.

[imachug]

I have just pinged everyone except @MuxZeroNet, @frerepoulet, @jTeego and @mnlg via email. If you know how to contact these 4 people (especially @MuxZeroNet) please tell me.

[TheNain38]

GPLv3-only and Lax

[imachug]

Actually, we've probably incorrectly identified @TigerND as jTeego. @TigerND can you please vote here?

[filips123]

I created ZeroTalk topic.

Note that those are GitHub usernames and a user may use different ZeroID. If you know any other way of contacting those users, please let us know.

[erqan]

i don't care...

[caryoscelus]

I'm not a lawyer, but here's my perspective on "GPL violation" issue if anyone's interested (i'm assuming the violation itself happened as per discussion, i.e. Apache & GPL3 libs were used):

• using Apache libs is violation of 0net's own license, which means that if all contributors agree, then whoever violated license (and thus got their license terminated) by distributing 0net along linked with those libs can be granted the same / different license again

• using GPL3 libs would be a violation of both licenses. The same reasoning as above applies to 0net license; as for libs' license, GPL3 is pretty liberal in terms of restoration after termination. Essentially violation should be fixed in 30 days (after copyright holder notification, which to my knowledge haven't even happened yet)

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

That said, i highly doubt that there will be someone seriously trying to enforce GPL in terms of license termination. If you look for real court cases, you'll find how much of conflicts were decided outside court, where violating parties were in fact proprietary vendors and not another free software project that messed up with licenses (and which, furthermore, is in the process of solving it). Unless someone maliciously "contributed" to 0net and/or libs it's using in order to then try to bring it down, the probability of any legal action (or even unfriendly moves from github) is very low. But honestly, i can't see this case standing any chance in court.

Finally, a note on license termination itself. The only cases for termination are distribution & modification and as far as i understand the violation happens only due to "linking" (tbh, not sure how it applies to python), thus merely sending patches shouldn't count. Which means that even in the worst case only those distributing 0net (i haven't been following whether anyone does alternative builds or something..) "binaries" can be held accountable and get license termination.

[filips123]

The only cases for termination are distribution & modification and as far as i understand the violation happens only due to "linking" (tbh, not sure how it applies to python), thus merely sending patches shouldn't count.

I asked FSF about that. I will post when I receive answer.

[dqwyy]

Hi I received the email. I don't care about the license because I did no contributions but fixing a few translations.
Cheers.

[imachug]

@dqwyy Can you please post a single-line comment for the bot, exactly as specified in the issue? "I don't care" would work.

Btw, AFAIK translations are contributions - not to code, but to data.

[tangdou1]

GPLv3+

[gyulaweber]

GPLv3+

[Emeraude]

I don't care

[bencevans]

GPLv3+

[dqwyy]

I don't care

[imachug]

@rllola I've seen you online recently, can you vote please?

[filips123]

Stop lying. You were banned a long before you ever reported license violations and before Tamas Kocsis ever pushed that changes.

The reason for this was that you implemented useless cache for files, and when nobody wanted it, you started spamming, trolling and making death threats to people who told you that cache is useless.

After that, you created another account which is already violation of GitHub ToS and continue spamming and making death threats.

Also, creating more and more accounts won't make your statements any more true.

[imachug]

Damn, @HelloZeroNet can you hide the messages as offtopic?

Btw, I could do that quicker if I were a collaborator ;)

[filips123]

Stop lying. You were banned a long before you ever reported license violations and before Tamas Kocsis ever pushed that changes.

The reason for this was that you implemented useless cache for files, and when nobody wanted it, you started spamming, trolling and making death threats to people who told you that cache is useless.

After that, you created another account which is already violation of GitHub ToS and continue spamming and making death threats.

Also, creating more and more accounts won't make your statements any more true.

[thesoftwarejedi]

HAHAHA This discussion is hilarious. "Illegal" copies of Zeronet. Licensing... Seriously? It's Zeronet. When did all these bureaucrats join? What is there a marketing team now too? This is too much.

You all are so far disconnected from the original software and vision. As someone who has been there from day #1, let me assure you that this license issue is completely. ridiculous. Drop it and get back to developing, or get lost. There's more drama in this thread than on a teenage cheerleading team.

[imachug]

@thesoftwarejedi You could have noticed that we are working on this problem without any input from nofish. We are solving licensing issues whilst nofish is actually working. But actually several technical problems arised after hacktivist's rant. For example, we'd have to replace quite a few dependencies so I am now working on a faster ECDSA/ECIES/AES implementation. I got it working yesterday and am now embedding it into ZeroNet.

[JeremyRand]

HAHAHA This discussion is hilarious. "Illegal" copies of Zeronet. Licensing... Seriously? It's Zeronet. When did all these bureaucrats join? What is there a marketing team now too? This is too much.

You all are so far disconnected from the original software and vision. As someone who has been there from day #1, let me assure you that this license issue is completely. ridiculous. Drop it and get back to developing, or get lost. There's more drama in this thread than on a teenage cheerleading team.

@thesoftwarejedi It sounds to me like you couldn't care less what license your code is under. That's okay! If that's accurate, could you just vote for "I don't care" so that your stance is unambiguous?

[JeremyRand]

As an aside for anyone unfamiliar with how this stuff works, copyright licenses are not revocable unless they say otherwise. None of the licenses covered in this poll say they're revocable. As a result, all votes cast in this poll are valid, not just the most recent vote. So, if a user votes for GPLv3+, and then changes their vote to GPLv3, it's the GPLv3+ vote that takes precedence because it's a superset of their other votes. Similarly, if someone votes for MIT and then changes their vote to GPLv3+, their code can be used under either MIT or GPLv3+.

(Obviously, the above only applies for what license the user's code is available under. If they have a polite recommendation for what the ZeroNet maintainers choose to do, then they can change that as much as they like, and the ZeroNet maintainers should hopefully be nice people who take that change into account.)

[caryoscelus]

As an aside for anyone unfamiliar with how this stuff works, copyright licenses are not revocable unless they say otherwise. None of the licenses covered in this poll say they're revocable. As a result, all votes cast in this poll are valid, not just the most recent vote. So, if a user votes for GPLv3+, and then changes their vote to GPLv3, it's the GPLv3+ vote that takes precedence because it's a superset of their other votes. Similarly, if someone votes for MIT and then changes their vote to GPLv3+, their code can be used under either MIT or GPLv3+.

That's only assuming that voting in this thread is providing license to the user's code, which i think is quite dubious from legal pov.

[ghost]

Would be nice if this issue is fixed soon as possible. Not looks like anyone else is willing to vote.

For example, we'd have to replace quite a few dependencies so I am now working on a faster ECDSA/ECIES/AES implementation. I got it working yesterday and am now embedding it into ZeroNet.

That's great but the voting is not about replacing dependencies far as I concern, nobody agreed on that @imachug . It seems GPLv3+ got the most vote.

[filips123]

That's great but the voting is not about replacing dependencies far as I concern, nobody agreed on that

If dependencies are replaced, incompatibilities are fixed and voting is not needed.

[ghost]

The only problem is that you can't have it under GPLv2! That license is indefinitely terminated. Other licenses like AGPLv3+ and GPLv3 are temporally terminated and will be reactivated automatically when the issue is fixed! GPLv2 never again going to be reactivated no matter what.

No choice but to replace the license with GPLv3+.

[imachug]

Ok lol, how would switching our license help? And could we switch our license back to GPLv2 afterwards?

[ghost]

There is no back @imachug termination in GPLv2 is indefinite.

[imachug]

Where did you find that information? GPLv2 termination is indefinite in case you are violating it, e.g. in case you're using GPLv2 in a MIT project.

[filips123]

Why then conditions from GPLv2 (that code must still be GPL-licensed) still apply?

[ghost]

@imachug right in this moment you are violating it in your repository and so it is terminated. Apache 2.0 (I have little info about this license) but AGPLv3+ and GPLv3 is only suspended temporally. If the GPLv3+ license is placed on ZeroNet all issues going to be resolved. (And you can also replace dependencies afterwards)

You can't replace dependencies and expect to keep the GPLv2. That is just not permitted and also is interesting how you planning to force forks to get rid of those dependencies...

[filips123]

That is just not permitted

Why?

and also is interesting how you planning to force forks to get rid of those dependencies...

And how you are planning to force forks to update to GPLv3?

[ghost]

And how you are planning to force forks to update to GPLv3?

You don't need to force them in this case. They will get new version of ZeroNet anyway. However, replacing the dependencies will change nothing. Not possible to force everyone to move to MIT or anything else from GPL. There is really nothing can be done except using GPLv3. I'm too tired after two week to talk about this more.

[filips123]

They will get new version of ZeroNet anyway.

They will get new version of ZeroNet, including dependencies, anyway.

Not possible to force everyone to move to MIT or anything else from GPL.

"Forcing" forks to use GPLv3, MIT or update dependencies is the same.

I'm too tired after two week to talk about this more.

We allow you to stop.

[ghost]

"Forcing" forks to use GPLv3, MIT or update dependencies is the same.

Not the same @filips123 ! Who received under GPL will always allowed to keep distributing under GPL and since they not permitted to use GPLv2 they need to use GPLv3 on they repositories. This will hurt ZeroNet very badly!

[filips123]

they need to use GPLv3 on they repositories

And what is then de difference if they need to update dependencies or use MIT on they repositories?

[ghost]

Do whatever you want. I keep my repository with the dependencies under GPLv3+ no matter what and I think most people will do the same. This will create a huge problem for ZeroNet. It is seems some people working on restrictions in ZeroNet which is by itself forbidden under any versions of GPL. Replacing GPLv2 with GPLv3+ would solve all problems instantly and than @imachug can propose new dependencies. Worth noting that any attempt to restrict the use of ZeroNet will terminate the license even when it is GPLv3. The bottom line is that the end user always going to be protected under GPL no matter what.

[filips123]

I think most people will do the same

Which people?

would solve all problems instantly

After all contributors agree...

Worth noting that any attempt to restrict the use of ZeroNet

Switching to a more permissive license would be "attempt to restrict the use of ZeroNet"?

[ghost]

Which people?

Just about everyone.

After all contributors agree...

I told you, the voting is unnecessary. you and everyone else actually can replace the license in the repositories since the software is released under a GPLv2 which is terminated along with AGPLv3+ and GPLv3 which included in the source code. No need to agree on anything because there is no choice but use the GPLv3+ license. It is not something what you can put to vote. This is inevitable.

[imachug]

No, it's not inevitable. Even in your world there are two cases:

• Either we use GPLv3 if all/most developers agree;
• Or we stop distributing ZeroNet.

See, even if the law forces us to use GPLv3 (though I doubt but whatever) it might not allow us to do that.

[ghost]

Exactly. Only this two cases exist. Since it is not possible to revoke GPL and can't keep it under GPLv2... either use GPLv3 or the distribution of ZeroNet need to be halted and everyone, example using the zeronet.io website need to be notified about the licensing issue.

Using GPLv3+ is inevitable for everyone who has a copy of ZeroNet in they repositories meaning that thousands of people, including you.

[ghost]

I suggest the following file structure for GPLv3(+)

• https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/mainline/LICENSE
• https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/mainline/COPYING
• https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/mainline/INSTALL

GIMP repository is a good example I believe. LICENSE including the license statement and linking exceptions and referring to COPYING which includes the full GPLv3 license. INSTALL includes instructions on how to install ZeroNet.

Just an idea, doesn't need to follow if you don't agree. Example linking exception for OpenSSL can be seen here: https://github.com/janvidar/uhub/blob/master/COPYING.OpenSSL
This example is for you @HelloZeroNet I hope it helps.

[JeremyRand]

It is extremely likely that "binarypunk" is an alt of antifa. I recommend reporting the account for abuse and not engaging with the account otherwise.

[ghost]

Everyone knows @JeremyRand I'm not allowed to make a suggestion? Go fix Electrum-NMC instead. It is still crashing when you try to register a .bit domain. I'm the guy who reported to you and than disappeared. https://github.com/namecoin/electrum-nmc/issues/179 and seems someone else also having similar issues https://github.com/namecoin/electrum-nmc/issues/192 :smiley:

[ghost]

@CatTheHacker What is your problem with the structure I described in https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-554790302 ? :thinking: It is a very good structure and not only GIMP uses but most GNU projects as well.

@filips123 suggested to use README.md for the license statement and also to include the linking exceptions in that file. I don't think the README.md should be used for that. There should be just a general introduction to ZeroNet and links to the files like LICENSE, COPYING and INSTALL.

[imachug]

@binarypunk People want a fast solution. They don't want to search for INSTALL to install an app, so INSTALL should be merged with readme for sure.

[cxgreat2014]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[ghost]

@imachug the vote of @cxgreat2014 don't count? :thinking: The bot is dead again.

Regarding your opinion:

People want a fast solution. They don't want to search for INSTALL to install an app, so INSTALL should be merged with readme for sure.

I disagree respectfully. Not everyone can open and see a markdown file when they get the source code, it would be better to use a simple text file and so the structure I recommended here: https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-554790302 should be followed.

If someone want to get information about how to install ZeroNet they would look for the INSTALL file not the README.markdown. Same with the LICENSE and COPYING. The markdown file are only useful on GitHub not when people give ZeroNet source code to another person on a USB flash drive.

[filips123]

The bot is dead again.

It is fixed again. Thanks for report 👍

Not everyone can open and see a markdown file

Markdown is built specifically that you can open and read it without any render...

If someone want to get information about how to install ZeroNet they would look for the INSTALL file not the README.markdown.

No, most users will look for README. Why should they look to 10 different files if they can get all information in one place (README)?

[filips123]

I received the answer from FSF. Bellow is their original answer. Here is my quick summary:

• If we get permission from contributors, we can re-license future releases ZeroNet, also to GPLv3, MIT or another license. Although they suggest making sure that new license won't be harmful to the community, switch to MIT probably won't be as only libraries will be licensed so and the whole project would still be GPL.

• For any license change, we need permission from copyright owners (contributors).

• After incompatibilities are fixed, new versions can be legally distributed again. however, old versions will still be incompatible. Also, who has a copy of an old version will be in violation once they distribute their copy without fixing the license incompatibilities.

• Owner of the library that uses incompatible license can give us permission to use it even if licenses are incompatible. This would be useful for Apache-licensed projects where maintainers are still active.

---

Can future releases of GPLv2-licensed program become non-GPL-licensed
(but still open source) or GPLv3-licensed if all contributions agree?

yes

In the case of upgrading to GPLv3, if the GPLv2-licensed software
already has the "or later" option to upgrade (see section 9 of GPLv2),
then you need not ask permission to upgrade to GPLv3.

In the case of changing the license completely, the most important first
step is to make sure that the license change isn't disastrous to the
project and the community. A change to GPLv3 is a good idea since GPLv3
is an improvement over GPLv2 (we discussed one aspect of this when we
referenced how GPLv3 handles accidental violations.) But a change to a
GPL-incompatible license, or a license which would permit the software
to become proprietary may harm the community in many ways; some of which
are hard to foresee, and may be hidden behind the beguiling
attractiveness of a lax and permissive license which permits the work to
link everything under the sun.

What is the process of doing this?

You would need the explicit permission of all of the copyright holders
to change the license of their work.

Is consent from contributors needed if license violations are going to
be fixed with switching to GPLv3 which is compatible with
dependencies? What if switch to another open source license is needed
for this?

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

Also, what is the exact process of fixing this? Can a project license
be changed to compatible-one and can incompatible dependencies be
replaced with their license-compatible alternatives?

Once you square away all of the license compatibility problems, then
every copy of the correctly-licensed software will be in
compliance. This doesn't cure, or permit the distribution of
incompatibly-licensed past copies retroactively. To put it another way:
what is not in compliance isn't fixed by the fact there is a new version
out there which is.

Thankfully, software freedom means that everyone is free to copy and
share the compliant version once that is out and available.

Can the owner of a library which's license is being violated gives
permission to use it in that specific project even if licenses are
incompatible?

yes

Please see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

But with GPLv2, the rights of the violator under the GPL to further
distribute the work are immediately terminated upon violation.

Who is violator in this case? Project maintainer, the person who
unintentionally introduced incompatible dependency or the person which
distributes such project?

The GPL places conditions on distributing the software. Therefore, the
violator would be a distributor of the work if they do not abide by the
conditions of the license.

Also, are rights to distribute the project terminated when violation
was discovered or when it first happened?

When someone distributes the software not in compliance with the
conditions of GPLv2, their rights are immediately terminated (but
remember the The Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement I
referenced earlier). However, anyone who received a copy from them is
not also in violation unless and until they further distribute the
software in an incompatible way as well.

What is the process of restoring license after violations are fixed
and is there any specific process that needs to be done to fix
violations? What needs to be done in order to distribute that project
again?

Under GPLv2 the violator must request a reinstatement of rights from the
copyright holders before they may distribute the work again.

Under GPLv3 the violator is eligible for automatic reinstatement when:

• the violation is corrected, and they are not contacted by a
  copyright holder about the violation within sixty days after the
  correction, or

• the violator receives, from a copyright holder, a first-ever
  contact regarding a GPL violation, and it is corrected within
  thirty days of receipt of copyright holder's notice.

[ghost]

I'm happy to announce that I do distribute ZeroNet under GPLv3+ and I urge you to do the same urgently! Contributors do agree that ZeroNet need to be on GPLv3+ and that's all what matter. This voting can be closed and the license must be replaced.

[filips123]

Contributors do agree that ZeroNet need to be on GPLv3+ and that's all what matter.

All contributors need to agree and that's all what matter.

[ghost]

No they don't! I don't need to wait for anyone to replace my license and comply with the other licenses. You are all voting about something which is inevitable. The voting options also wrong! This voting should have only two options GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later not 10 nonsense. I as a contributor do comply with all licenses shipped in ZeroNet and there is nothing you can do to force me to do otherwise.

[filips123]

No they don't!

Yes they do. Read a response from FSF:

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change.

---

The voting options also wrong! This voting should have only two options GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later not 10 nonsense.

Explain.

[ghost]

You forget something. I'm not FSF. I was who reported the license issue and you should not write to FSF because you clearly have no idea what are you talking about and seems you don't understand the response of FSF (https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-555674565) either.

You must replace the license with GPLv3! Which part don't you understand? The voting started by @krixano @imachug and @filips123 whom have no clue about what are licenses. This is the truth. Go and read again the response you got from FSF. It is very clear!

[filips123]

seems you don't understand the response of FSF either

Explain that...

You must replace the license with GPLv3! Which part don't you understand?

I don't know. Can you explain me please?

[ghost]

OMG! Hey @filips123 do you understand what FSF wrote to you? Go read over and over again until you do understand.

[filips123]

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

Current ZeroNet license does not specify "or later". This means that we need permission from contributors to re-license ZeroNet to any other license, including GPLv3.

In the case of changing the license completely, the most important first
step is to make sure that the license change isn't disastrous to the
project and the community.

This is a suggestion, not a requirement. Also, because permissive license would only be used for core libraries, it won't disastrous to the project and the community in any way.

---

Now, please explain me what is wrong here...

[filips123]

Go read over and over again until you do understand.

I also recommend this to you...

[ghost]

Nobody need permission from the same violators who violating the license for years! You must replace the license in your repository and not wait for the violator to do so! You as a distributor must comply with the license terms. I'm in no way obligated to wait for your stupid nonsense voting which is written by someone who don't understand anything about licenses. I do distribute ZeroNet under GPLv3+ and that all what you need to know.

[filips123]

Contributors of code are the only one which has copyright for that piece of code. And they only give permission to distribute it under GPLv2. It doesn't matter if the license was violated, they still only give you permission to distribute it under GPLv2.

You need permission from contributors if you want to change license. Let me quote FSF again if you can't read:

In the case of upgrading to GPLv3, if the GPLv2-licensed software
already has the "or later" option to upgrade (see section 9 of GPLv2),
then you need not ask permission to upgrade to GPLv3.

You would need the explicit permission of all of the copyright holders
to change the license of their work.

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

[ghost]

You see. here is the problem. I don't change the license! I comply with the licenses! That is two very different thing! I'm legally forced to use a GPLv3 license on ZeroNet because I do distribute it!

[filips123]

To comply with the licenses, you changed the license. Again, you changed the license!

[ghost]

No! I did not changed the license! It is still GPL is not MIT (as you wanted so much). FSF clearly stated distributing ZeroNet under GPLv2 is terminate the license and I do know how licenses works (what you don't). I urge everyone who has a copy of ZeroNet in they repositories to distribute it with the GPLv3 license. Nothing else can be done!

For those who just reading now, @filips123 got a message from the Free Software Foundation https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-555674565 which confirming what I'm saying. You are illegally distributing ZeroNet if the license on your copy is not GPLv3+!

[filips123]

GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licenses! FSF just confirmed that. The only case when you don't need consent to change to GPLv3 is when GPLv2 specifies "or later" which ZeroNet doesn't.

For those who just reading now, @binarypunk is a troll which is spamming and trolling on ZeroNet issues for a few weeks. He things he knows how licenses work, although he doesn't, and nobody agree with him.

---

Again:

You would need the explicit permission of all of the copyright holders
to change the license of their work.

Now explain where does this prove your points.

---

Nothing else can be done!

What about finding alternative libraries, contacting library authors to give permission, etc?

[ghost]

You are a joke! Look at how you acting! You immediately attacking me because you are a retarded person. You over quoting your own messages as well and so you are the spammer. STOP OVER QUOTING YOURSELF YOU MANIAC!

[filips123]

STOP OVER QUOTING YOURSELF YOU MANIAC!

So I am FSF?

[ghost]

No, you are just an idiot who wrote to FSF and they replied very friendly. They don't know that ZeroNet for years violating the licenses because you was too silent about that. You lie to FSF and misleading previous contributors. Shame on you!

[filips123]

Shame on you!

Says someone who has been trolling, spamming making death threats, violating GitHub ToS...

You lie to FSF and misleading previous contributors.

I am misleading previous contributors because I am giving them right they own to decide which license will be used?

[ghost]

You are too stupid (excuse me or saying this way) to understand that there is absolutely nothing else can be done but using a GPLv3+ license on ZeroNet because this is the only way how you can comply with all other source code which shipped with ZeroNet. This is a fact. You may try to replace libraries as @imachug currently working on that, but this will not change the fact that GPLv2 is terminated! If future releases of ZeroNet is licensed anything but GPL that would very badly harm ZeroNet.

The difference between you and me is that I looking out for the best interest of ZeroNet while you and some other looking ways to restrict ZeroNet, even if you need to disregard what contributors want. That is pretty shameful.

[filips123]

there is absolutely nothing else can be done but using a GPLv3+ license

What about finding alternative libraries, contacting library authors to give permission, using another license, etc?

If future releases of ZeroNet is licensed anything but GPL that would very badly harm ZeroNet.

Because it would become easier to use in third-party solutions and more popular?

but this will not change the fact that GPLv2 is terminated

GPLv2 is not terminated. Licenses of dependencies are.

while you and some other looking ways to restrict ZeroNet,

Allowing others to easier create ZeroNet-based programs would restrict ZeroNet?

if you need to disregard what contributors want

Says someone who wants to completely ignore "voting". And BTW, it is not voting but contributor agreement for license change (CLA).

[ghost]

GPLv3+

[ghost]

I'm done arguing with you @filips123. The Free Software Foundation was very clear in they message: https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-555674565
I'm required to distribute ZeroNet with GPLv3 and I do so by using GPLv3+ license on it. This is what most of the contributors want and this is what must everyone use who legally distribute the software. Period.

[filips123]

The Free Software Foundation was very clear in their message:

In the case of upgrading to GPLv3, if the GPLv2-licensed software
already has the "or later" option to upgrade (see section 9 of GPLv2),
then you need not ask permission to upgrade to GPLv3.

You would need the explicit permission of all of the copyright holders
to change the license of their work.

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

[filips123]

So, explain what is not true here.

[ghost]

Again, you lied to the Free Software Foundation and clearly you intended to mislead them by keeping silent about the real issue.

Quotes from the message you received from FSF: https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-555674565

Once you square away all of the license compatibility problems, then
every copy of the correctly-licensed software will be in
compliance. This doesn't cure, or permit the distribution of
incompatibly-licensed past copies retroactively. To put it another way:
what is not in compliance isn't fixed by the fact there is a new version
out there which is.

Thankfully, software freedom means that everyone is free to copy and
share the compliant version once that is out and available.

The GPLv2 license is terminated and there is nothing you can do about it. I'm not bound by the terms of that license at all! Meaning that I and everyone else are able to use (legally required) to use GPLv3+ in our distributions!

You must stop distributing ZeroNet under GPLv2, instead you must distribute my version which is in compliance! Is this clear for you?

[shakna-israel]

None.

[shakna-israel]

To be absolutely clear on the license situation:

• Until all the contributors have agreed to a change, you're violating the license and shouldn't be distributing the code.

• If all contributors agree, you can change to any license compatible with all your sublicenses.

My reason for "None" is I don't really want to be associated with this project anymore. My contributions were minor. Removing them shouldn't be arduous.

But, you _are_ currently in violation by continuing to distribute.

You will also _continue_ to be in violation unless the git history is also changed to reflect the legal situation. A clean git history once the new license in place will probably be a requirement.

[ghost]

I don't expect Israel to be something. That's right. Israel is NONE. :rofl:

But, you are currently in violation by continuing to distribute.

That is correct.

You will also continue to be in violation unless the git history is also changed to reflect the legal situation. A clean git history once the new license in place will probably be a requirement.

This is also correct. Pull requests in the future not allowed to be closed, copied and than merged in the name of other than the originator.

If all contributors agree, you can change to any license compatible with all your sublicenses.

This is not correct. The reason is because ZeroNet is currently violating the licenses. The agreement is only necessary if there is no violation and the license change is proposed. Right now it is an obligation to replace the license in the repositories and since it can't be anything than GPL, GPLv3+ must be used!

[JeremyRand]

For hell's sake guys, stop feeding the troll. You gain nothing whatsoever from trying to engage him. If you insist on feeding him for some reason, please do it in a thread that I don't follow. (I need to follow this thread because its outcome impacts my day job; whatever garbage the Antifa troll has to say most definitely does not impact my day job and I'm tired of seeing notifications about it just because you want to argue with him.) Report the troll to GitHub for abuse (registering alt accounts to bypass bans violates GitHub ToS), and if GitHub doesn't respond fast enough, just block him from commenting on this repo.

[ghost]

You should go and work on Namecoin or I contact the developer team and make sure you will be kicked of from the Namecoin project. How many times I need to report that none of your program related to Namecoin is working? Namecoin deserve a better person than you @JeremyRand . Namecoin is the first fork of Bitcoin and you are big disgrace!

[JeremyRand]

You will also continue to be in violation unless the git history is also changed to reflect the legal situation. A clean git history once the new license in place will probably be a requirement.

@shakna-israel I'm not a lawyer, but:

A clean Git history (starting at the point of relicense) is reasonable, though I doubt it's actually necessary since it's super unlikely that any copyright holders will be interested in suing over it. That said, the existing Git history should be preserved in a separate repo so that security audits can confirm that no backdoors were introduced in the repo switch. I am of the opinion that the security necessity of preserving the old repo for audits will outweigh whatever copyright interests are at play, for the same reason that no one has sued the operators of CT logs [1] for illegal content that they're hosting. I would however recommend that the old audit-only repo have one final commit appended to it, which removes all files and adds a readme explaining why the repo has been recreated, and explaining that the old repo is only there for security audits. That reduces the risk that anyone will be able to argue that someone is hosting the old repo for the purpose of average users installing the noncompliant software.

[1] Or the users of blockchains, some of which are (last I heard) containing legally dubious content embedded in transactions.

[ghost]

Hey man. You don't know :hankey: ! Better if you go and work to fix problems with Namecoin stuff namely Electrum-NMC and others or seriously I will make sure you going to be kicked of from the Namecoin project!

[ghost]

ZeroNet needs Namecoin and far as I know none of the GUI is working (to register .bit domain) and so the only way to get a .bit domain is use Electrum-NMC which is not working and you not fixing it far as I see but you come here and posting about the license while you clearly not a lawyer. Let me tell you @JeremyRand I'm a lawyer! Keep it secret my boy.

[ghost]

ZeroNet repository and everyone else can use the public domain https://github.com/cfpb/github-changelog to generate changelog since the GPLv3 license will require to state all the changes including in forks!

[filips123]

Users can use this tool themselves if they want. For anything else, changelog in GitHub Releases and ZeroBlog is enough.

[ghost]

You see here we disagree again @filips123. I believe that every change must be stated in the ChangeLog file and in the other hand GitHub should be abandoned because it is centralized. I strongly support @imachug and his "git center" on ZeroNet: https://github.com/imachug/gitcenter

Example ChangeLog: https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/mainline/ChangeLog.pre-1-0 :+1:

The change log file is normally called ChangeLog and covers an entire directory. Each directory can have its own change log, or a directory can use the change log of its parent directory—it’s up to you. - https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Log-Concepts.html#Change-Log-Concepts

Also worth noting Semantic Versioning https://semver.org/. Read more about ChangeLog at the link above or at https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.1.0/ (or see ChangeLog example in markdown format https://github.com/olivierlacan/keep-a-changelog/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md notice how he gives credit to contributors!)

[filips123]

So we need 20 different files just for ChangeLog? And just that you know, GIMP stopped using file changelogs and instead using release notes on their site.

[ghost]

The site and the source code is two different thing! If you get the GIMP source code you will get ChangeLog files with it!

[filips123]

Changelogs last updated 10 years ago...

[ghost]

That is false! See: https://download.gimp.org/mirror/pub/gimp/v2.10/gimp-2.10.0-RC2.tar.bz2 (older GIMP release from 2018 comes with ChangeLog)

commit 6582692ec6c8196108b2d42f6758c62076a88d13
Author: Michael Natterer <[email protected]>
Date:   Tue Apr 17 21:27:05 2018 +0200

    configure.ac: release 2.10.0-RC2

Latest GIMP release from 2019-10-31: https://download.gimp.org/mirror/pub/gimp/v2.10/gimp-2.10.14.tar.bz2

commit a4f55d6c7e91abbdef8faab2b0a97c114081f06d
Author: Michael Natterer <[email protected]>
Date:   Sun Oct 27 22:13:04 2019 +0100

    configure.ac: bump versions for the 2.10.14 release

 configure.ac | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

As you see GIMP uses ChangeLog file since the very beginning until this day!

[imachug]

How would you prove that no changes were made during the fork? I mean, you can modify old commits even without forking so it looks impossible (and probably makes little sense because we can just review the code and/or compare it with the old repository content)

[ghost]

@imachug @filips123 take a look at this, I copied from the GIMP source code these files and as you see my OS identifies the files automatically!

[imachug]

First, that's not thanks to the OS, that's because of your desktop and file manager. Anyways, many other OSes don't support that (read: Ubuntu/Debian + nautilus, Windows + explorer, etc.). Now what?

[ghost]

Since it is a project which uses a GNU GPL license I suggest to follow GNU coding standards! You can do whatever you want but I guarantee it will be a big mess like it is in this very moment. GNU coding standards are exists for a very good reason! Some new 23 years old programmers can't understand that reason and that's fine but I as a hacker who was anno hacking Windows 95 (when you was not even living) I will always follow the standards!

[imachug]

Ok so can we avoid the standards legally?

[ghost]

Sure, let GitHub and Microsoft tell you how to organize your files in your repository! Most people anyway sucked up by Microsoft and following its standards on GitHub...

[ghost]

I still think this is pretty cool! Don't you think?

AUTHORS file AUTHORS.txt states the full legal name of each contributor in various sections! (.txt extension added because GitHub sucks)

[imachug]

That is cool, but unfortunately there are few file managers that support these files. So I think it's not better than GitHub UI / git repository contents.

[ghost]

Do you organize all files for GitHub or for people? I will not back down! GitHub sucks and if every software developer following GitHub "standards" than we can say R.I.P "open-source" free software! I was always against GitHub and not surprise why many developers migrated to somewhere else. I told you I start a ZeroNet repository on my own server using GitLab but is also turns out a big trash.

I hate googlelang but still probably will use https://gitea.io/

[imachug]

It's not for GitHub, it's for Git.

[filips123]

I hate googlelang

At least something where we agree 👍

[filips123]

GIMP's changelog in their repository are not updated. Their changelogs are in release notes on their website.

You don't need 20 different files. They will just create mess. You can display all those things in README, GitHub or website.

Most OSs also don't handle those "special files" in any way.

And not only GitHub has this features (release notes, contributors list...). Almost every VCS hosting system has them. Also GitLab, Gitea and GitCenter can also be updated to support them.

[ghost]

@filips123 I kindly ask you to download the latest GIMP release source-code: https://download.gimp.org/mirror/pub/gimp/v2.10/gimp-2.10.14.tar.bz2 and see yourself that in fact they do update the ChangeLog file!

[ghost]

I would be very happy if we can move ZeroNet to https://savannah.nongnu.org/ but I see little chance for that. :disappointed:

[imachug]

@binarypunk We could automatically add the changelog to ZeroNet releases.

[ghost]

I can register ZeroNet on https://savannah.nongnu.org/ but the license must be fixed first. There are two options for license either GPL-2.0-or-later (which is clearly not the case in ZeroNet) or GPL-3.0-or-later.

[ghost]

We could automatically add the changelog to ZeroNet releases.

That would be great! Just make sure it follows GNU coding standards! ChangeLog :+1:

[ghost]

This is from the GNU Savannah:

My dependencies are compatible with my project license

Also asking for name + license + website for each dependency

[ghost]

I read carefully and don't check this one :rofl: :+1:

[ghost]

Okay I see, look @imachug GNU Savannah:

"We recommend GPLv3-or-later; in any case, we require the “or any later version” formulation for the GNU GPL, GNU AGPL, and GNU LGPL."

@HelloZeroNet I request permission to allow me to fix the license and send ZeroNet to GNU Savannah for approval. I will fix any issue regarding the copyright headers in the files, file structure namely creating files according to the GNU coding standards, including LICENSE, COPYING, INSTALL, AUTHORS, ChangeLog etc.. I will also organize the dependencies and they licenses according to the standards for fast approval.

[imachug]

You can't do that without contributor agreement, go read FSF's reply.

[ghost]

I requesting permission for submission to GNU Savannah not to use a GPLv3+ license! The current license is dead and the only way to fix it is to replace it with GPLv3+! I sent a message about an hour ago to Stallman I'm discussing with him this in details. I take all responsibility to maintain and update the GNU Savannah repository.

[imachug]

The only way to fix it is to ask all the contributors and then change the license to something we agree on.

[ghost]

Are you voting about to comply with the license or not? :rofl:

[ghost]

Nobody gives a damn about the contributors when each of you is violating the licenses! Hypocrisy :rofl:

[imachug]

We are violating licenses. This issue is to make surebwe are legally allowed to fix the violation.

[filips123]

Since when you can legally allowed to "fix" a crime? I thought if you commit a crime you get jail, not time to vote!

And death threats are not a crime?

Also,and your switch to GPLv3 would also magically fix a "crime"?

Since all contributions made under GPL the license can be replace with GPLv3+ without any issue.

"GPL" license does not exist! There are just GPLv1, GPLv2 and GPLv3. Both of them are independent and different. As pointed by FSF, you need consent from contributions for any license change, including GPLv3, as GPLv3 is different license than GPLv2. The only case when you don't need consent is if software was already licensed as GPLv2 or later, but this is not the case in ZeroNet. As contributions are made only under GPLv2 only, we need consent from their authors to change the license.

I'm a lawyer

And I'm an astronaut.

[imachug]

We can distribute the software until some dependency author asks us to stop that. Before that, we can't be sued in most countries. So we have some time to fix the problems and distribute the (illegal) copies at the same time (as long as the authors don't tell us to stop, of course).

BTW, I am not 23 years old so you can stop telling everyone that...

[ajmeese7]

I don't care

[thesoftwarejedi]

I don't care

[HelloZeroNet]

Looks we have reached the end of active users. Looks like most of the votes for GPL3+. I'm fine with both GPL3 and MIT.
So should I change it to GPL3+ or what's next?

[imachug]

I am afraid that 56% looks like a too small percentage in case we have legal issues in the future. It's probably worth checking what contributions are actually included in current ZeroNet core and check whether we can remove some (inactive) people from the list whose contributions weren't used.

[adrelanos]

Yes. You should check. I didn't contribute a single line of code to
ZeroNet. Just issues and maybe a minor readme pull request. I shouldn't
have been asked to vote since my code contribution is zero. There may be
others where this is true too.

(I already voted "I don't care.")

[imachug]

@adrelanos A readme PR is a contribution even if you don't think so. That's kinda a problem because quite a lot of inactive people contributed translations.

[HelloZeroNet]

I am afraid that 56% looks like a too small percentage

Well I think the percentage should be based on the contributed line numbers.

If we do a statistics based on this I think votes on GPL3+ should be 95%+ (I have commited 89% of the lines based on https://gist.github.com/HelloZeroNet/8fe032e877fe9fe7395357debd2a904e)

[adrelanos]

Alright.

However, my change was so tiny that I wouldn't be eligible for voting. I
think I just added a link to Whonix documentation, that's it. Couldn't
claim copyright for that. Adding me here was mistake. Not that I mind,
but there could be similar mistakes.

[imachug]

Alright I guess this percentage is good enough. @shakna-israel will you change your mind?

[JeremyRand]

I am afraid that 56% looks like a too small percentage

Well I think the percentage should be based on the contributed line numbers.

If we do a statistics based on this I think votes on GPL3+ should be 95%+ (I have commited 89% of the lines based on https://gist.github.com/HelloZeroNet/8fe032e877fe9fe7395357debd2a904e)

@HelloZeroNet AFAIK the 95% rule of thumb from Mozilla only applies if the remaining 5% were unreachable. Since some contributors were reachable and explicitly voted for GPLv3-only, I believe that means we can't re-license to GPLv3+ unless all of those contributors' code is removed from ZeroNet. GPLv3-only should be fine though, as long as the 1 contributor marked as "Blocking" has their contributions removed.

(If you really need more detailed info on this, let me know and I'll see if I can dig up some references.)

[shakna-israel]

Alright I guess this percentage is good enough. @shakna-israel will you change your mind?

@imachug

git log --author="James Milne"

My only commit is: 59ceb438c4cd6233c710ff5a8c596beb113b337f

I'm not interested in a continued association with the project.

The only thing I did was create a well-formatted requirements.txt, there's no reason to believe that can be copyrighted - anyone adding one would have ended up with the exact same file.

However, Mozilla's re-licensing wasn't quite as simple as unreachable people get moved to the new license - old contributions were under the old license whilst new under the new (in a dual-licensing situation), until the old contributions were removed or changed.

[imachug]

Ok @shakna-israel I think you're right. Anyways, it looks like I didn't quite get the 95%+ rule correctly. So I guess we'll have to get all contributors vote or remove their contributions. That's... disgusting.

[filips123]

Anyways, it looks like I didn't quite get the 95%+ rule correctly.

This rule means that if small percentage of users were unreachable after several attempts, we can assume they agree with change. However, if they specifically don't agree, we can't ignore them.

[imachug]

@filips123 Not really, we can't assume they agree, we still have to dual-license the code.

[filips123]

As it is very hard to get 100% agreement, most open source communities agree that some very high percentage (for example 95%) is enough for relicesing:

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.

However, in our case, the only currently possible option is dual-licencing as we don't have enough agreements.

[imachug]

@filips123 Unfortunately we can't dual-license, at least with lax licenses, and GPLv2 is incompatible.

[HelloZeroNet]

we don't have enough agreements.

I do think we have enough agreements. It would be great if someone could link the active code lines to the votes.

[imachug]

I am still not quite sure whether we can use code that is now licensed under GPLv3+ as a part of a GPLv3-only project. @filips123 Do you think it's fine?

[HelloZeroNet]

now licensed under GPLv3+ as a part of a GPLv3-only project.

I think we can: GPLv3+ means you can license it using GPLv3 or GPLv4 (if it becomes a thing). It's up to you which one you want to use.

[imachug]

Hm, I wasn't sure whether "using as a part of the project" is different from "using as a dependency" or something. In this case, let me update the bot to calculate just plain GPLv3 stats too.

[imachug]

Oh, BTW, I think that git's stats are probably a little bit wrong because they also include lines that were removed. I think we should only count lines/parts that are currently used.

[ghost]

Let me be absolutely clear.

You either replace the license with GPLv3+ or stop distributing ZeroNet illegally!

Your vote is a disaster because everyone who has been pinged knows that most of you are criminals. I request to remove my contribution from this ZeroNet repository. License violation is a serious issue not something what you can keep doing for weeks!

[imachug]

Ok I guess we can use GPLv3-only in case we remove the contributions by the three people who voted for "Lax". We can also use GPLv3+ but I guess we have to ask @TheNain38's permission.

Anyway, it's be still useful to look through the code made by @rllola, @radfish, @MuxZeroNet (something I'm afraid of), @grez911 and @lainlime. We have to make sure we have as few lines commited by inactive people as possible.

Now, we have to take a look at the dependencies. Quite a lot of them are GPLv3-incompatible.

[filips123]

Ok I guess we can use GPLv3-only in case we remove the contributions by the three people who voted for "Lax".

Are you sure that we need to remove that contributions? As Lax is more permissive than GPLv3, we can still license their contributions as GPLv3.

[imachug]

Hm. I guess it's still the dependency/part-of problem. If we assume this code counts as a dependency, we can use Lax-licensed code I guess. So we only have two problems instead of three, lol.

[filips123]

Now, we have to take a look at the dependencies. Quite a lot of them are GPLv3-incompatible.

Have you made any progress on that?

[ghost]

we can use GPLv3-only

No you can't! Contributors voted for GPLv3+!
You need to remove all contributions which comes from people who voted for GPLv3+!

Now, we have to take a look at the dependencies. Quite a lot of them are GPLv3-incompatible.

All license is compatible with GPLv3+. @imachug and @filips123 if you don't know anything about the licenses better you shut your mouth.

[imachug]

Have you made any progress on that?

:laughing: I still have a segmentation fault on a single OpenSSL version with sslcrypto, and it can only be reproduced on GitHub Actions backend but not on any device I have access to... I'm debugging that but it's really difficult.

Contributors voted for GPLv3+!

We can... They licensed their work under GPLv3+ for us which means that we can use it under any GPL license, including GPLv3-only.

All license is compatible with GPLv3+

Sorry but BitTorrent Open Source License is incompatible. That's just a single example.

[imachug]

BitTorrent Open Source License

.

[filips123]

Contributors voted for GPLv3+!

GPv3+ means GPLv3 or later. So we can either use GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later for license.

Show me just one dependency which is not compatible with GPLv3+!

Bencode parser. Licensed under BitTorrent Open Source License. Incompatible with any GPL license.

[ghost]

NO @filips123 ! You can't license ZeroNet GPLv3-only when most contributors clearly voted for GPLv3+! These two licenses very different! Lastly I did my scan in the ZeroNet source code and there is nothing licensed under BitTorrent Open Source License. Do you scan again @filips123!

[imachug]

That's because you can't even scan that... Dumbass.

Sorry.

[ghost]

Did you forked this https://github.com/filips123/scancode-toolkit for fun? Use it! If you find for me any license which is not compatible with GPLv3+ let me know.

[filips123]

You can't license ZeroNet GPLv3-only when most contributors clearly voted for GPLv3+

This is the same as you would say that you can't include public domain software in other licenses because authors licensed it under public domain.

[imachug]

:man_facepalming: There are also package managers such as PIP, do you know that? Take a look at requirements.txt file.

[imachug]

Oh damn... you do know what package managers are, don't you?

[filips123]

talk respectfully

Same person, few minutes earlier:

The two retard again in action.

[imachug]

What is installed using PIP is not shipped in the source code you retard!

Ok... go read FSF's reply.

[ghost]

The license only applies to the source code what you shipping! If something is not in the source code than you have no problem! @filips123 use https://github.com/filips123/scancode-toolkit without installing requirements.txt only that matters!

[imachug]

@SwissConfederation Go read FSF's reply. They say it counts.

[ghost]

It's not count! I'm telling you. When I downloading ZeroNet from GitHub, I can run the program without installing anything using pip. Meaning is not count as you say!

[filips123]

No, because those are GPLv2-incompatible licenses. It doesn't really
matter the technical details of how they arrive at being included and
linked to the project.

If it was possible to simply package incompatible (this includes
proprietary) libraries in a different file, or something similar, then
it would be trivially easy to circumvent the GPL and the license would
have no effect.

[filips123]

It is same about any copyleft license!

[imachug]

I can run the program without installing anything using pip

No you can't, it's gonna raise error and exit. Try it.

[adrelanos]

Debian package https://packages.debian.org/jessie/flashplugin-nonfree is GPL-2
https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//contrib/f/flashplugin-nonfree/flashplugin-nonfree_3.6.1+deb8u1_copyright
It is Libre Software.
But it downloads non-free software (adobe flash).
Hence, it cannot be in Debian main repository.
It is therefore in Debian contrib repository.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#the-contrib-archive-area
Nonetheless. main vs contrib or not. flashplugin-nonfree is Libre Software.

Some Libre licenses forbid to link against non-free software.

But ZeroNet does not "link" against anything?
"link" has a specific legal definition.

I guess I can use pip however I want or not want on my local system. Could even use pip to install non-free software. Let's suppose pip had an option to ship non-free software "nicer terminal colors".

Why wouldn't I you be allowed to let me download to use ZeroNet source code if ZeroNet makes use of "nicer terminal colors"?

More problematic if you were to ship complete bundles (ZeroNet Windows download?), i.e. ZeroNet with all (theoretically) nonfree (incompatible licenses). That may not be possible?

Either way. I would suggest, break down the problem to a much simpler example to demonstrate what's wrong.

[ghost]

@adrelanos The problem is this: https://exaratelip.htmlpasta.com/
ZeroNet is licensed under GPLv2 which is incompatible with the licenses you see in the scan of the source code.

ZeroNet must have a GPLv3+ (GPL-3.0-or-later) license to solve license incompatibility issues.

[filips123]

The license only matters when you ship something in the source code.

So we can keep GPLv2 and just use the same packages with incompatible licenses but from PyPI? What is then points of license?

FSF already said that unfortunately this is not possible.

Could even use pip to install non-free software.

You can already. PyPI packages provide "license" field which is counted as license information. But you can't distribute/use them in GPL-licensed project.

So ZeroNet must have a GPLv3+ (GPLv3.0-or-later) license to solve license incompatibility issues.

Or replace incompatible dependencies with compatible alternatives and keep GPLv2.

Or use GPLv3-only, for which we already have permission from many contributions.

Or use MIT, if we get permission from contributors.

[ghost]

@adrelanos Yes, probably I'm the only one here who know the legal definition of linking. I did demonstrated them previously how to do it properly but they are ignorant as hell.
I used the same file structure as GIMP. In my example LICENSE file had a statement about the GPLv3+ with GPL linking exception and the file COPYING had the full GPLv3 license text.

[filips123]

Yes, probably I'm the only one here who know the legal definition of linking

Yes, you better know things than FSF.

Explain me why we can't keep GPLv2 if we replace incompatible dependencies, use GPLv3-only or use MIT.

Also explain what is the point of licenses if you can bypass them just with using dependencies from PyPI.

[filips123]

Explain me why we can't keep GPLv2 if we replace incompatible dependencies, use GPLv3-only or use MIT.

Also explain what is the point of licenses if you can bypass them just with using dependencies from PyPI.

[ghost]

I'm interested in @adrelanos not in you. You are annoying @filips123 you requoting yourself and your stupid things what you read randomly on the net. I would like to discuss this with @adrelanos not with you.

[imachug]

Ok would you like to discuss anything with me?

[imachug]

Can we switch to IRC now please.

[ghost]

Are you @adrelanos ? I don't think so.

[imachug]

So you are not looking for any technical discussion and don't listen to our explanations. I am now blocking you from @ZeroNetTickBot account, feel free to chat on #zeronet:freenode.net.

[adrelanos]

Could I please see the full, uncut e-mail which was sent to FSF and their full, uncut reply? (so I can see full context)

(https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-559537766 is just a snippet, partial quote?)

[ghost]

@imachug We are not chatting. I'm waiting for @adrelanos to see what is the problem with ZeroNet. He at least understand it and he is respectful not like you and @filips123. Threatening me with block is absurd and shameful.

[imachug]

I wasn't threating, I just think that this issue shouldn't be for discussions... we kinda got everyone reply though so I guess it's ok. Feel free to chat more unless HelloZeroNet wants to stop that.

[ghost]

@imachug Explain to me how is that now GPLv3-only has more votes? I did archived this site various times and never was more votes for GPLv3-only. Today you manipulated the vote! This is absurd and illegal!

[filips123]

Threatening me with block is absurd and shameful.
This is absurd and illegal!

Much like spamming, trolling, violating ToS, death threats...

Could I please see the full, uncut e-mail which was sent to FSF and their full, uncut reply?

Sure, just wait a few minutes.

Explain to me how is that now GPLv3-only has more votes?

Because contributions from contributors which accepted GPLv3+ can also be licensed as GPLv3 only. However, some contributors also chose GPLv3 only which can't be licensed as GPLv3+.

[imachug]

@SwissConfederation I've mentioned that half an hour before but oh well... I also made GPLv3-only include GPLv3+.

[imachug]

@SwissConfederation There's a single person for GPLv3-only. That's why I said that we can use either GPLv3+ or GPLv3-only, but we can only use GPLv3+ if we remove that person's contributions...

[filips123]

?

[imachug]

What for? From my point of view (@filips123's and @JeremyRand's as well) we're now counting the votes right. I guess I should add Lax licenses as well though...

[imachug]

What for? You can use GPLv3+ in GPLv3-only.

[filips123]

You can use code from users who voted for GPLv3+ under GPLv3. The same as you can use MIT code in GPLv3, public domain in MIT and GPLv3...

[filips123]

GPLv3+ is more permissive than GPLv3-only

Yes. And you can include more permissive licenses in less permissive ones. But not the opposite way.

[imachug]

You manipulated this voting today without asking anyone about it! This is illegal!

1. These are stats, the actual voting results weren't changed at all.
2. I did ask, @JeremyRand and @filips123 told me you can use GPLv3+ code in GPLv3-only project so I added GPLv3+ voters to GPLv3-only stats entry.

[imachug]

I am not going against the voting... The stats just show what we can legally do. Think of the numbers as the probability that we aren't going to be sued or something like that.

[filips123]

So you also think you can't use public domain code in MIT-licensed program? And that you can't use MIT code in GPL-licensed program?

[filips123]

You are annoying @filips123 you requoting yourself and your stupid things what you read randomly on the net.

And then you post each your comment at least two times.

[imachug]

At least I don't delete edit history as you do, the bot source code is open-source, you can check people votes yourself and no one can delete votes except the votes themselves.

Anyways, it's not about popularity: see, if people voted for GPLv3+ this means that they released their code for GPLv3+ officially which means that we can use their code as long as ZeroNet is licensed under GPLv3 (-or-later or -only), GPLv4 (-or-later or -only), etc.

[filips123]

@adrelanos I think I already posted FSF reply, but as the discussion here is quite long, here it is again on Pastebin:

• 1
• 2

[imachug]

Can you please tell me what I manipulated? I have only change stats. These stats show what percentage of people allow us to use the code under GPLv3+, GPLv3-only, etc. These results are right, the previous results were a bit off.

[filips123]

Legally speaking you are a criminal!

Trolling, spamming, violating ToS, death and other threats, insults... aren't a crime?

[ghost]

@adrelanos I suggest you ignore these people. I was who reported the licensing issues and I do have legal background. I do understand clearly everything about the licenses. Today as you see they even manipulated the voting before even finished. @filips123 was wrote to FSF because he was upset that need to change the license. I'm the person who can give you correct answer to your questions not this two retard.

[filips123]

talk respectfully

[ghost]

@adrelanos I send you an email to RiseUp.

[imachug]

Ok so FSF is wrong right?

[ghost]

@adrelanos I sent you an email from h***@pm.me

[filips123]

You don't need to post each comment multiple times...

[ghost]

I actually removing all the comments from here. I discuss the issue with someone who is respectful and understand what he is talking about. No, I'm not talking about you. I talk about @adrelanos

[filips123]

I actually removing all the comments from here.

Then you talk about how others are manipulating the voting...

[filips123]

And just that you know, there is ZeroNet IRC channel just for you.

[ghost]

I did not manipulated the voting results but @imachug did! You are all should be shame of yourselves! The voting not even ended but already one person at his own will changed the results! Disgusting and absolutely illegal! I will not use and distribute ZeroNet under GPLv3-only because most contributors voted for GPLv3+!

[imachug]

fixed stats calculating

changed the results

:man_facepalming:

[filips123]

I did not manipulated the voting results but @imachug did!

No he didn't.

You are all should be shame of yourselves!

Why?

Disgusting and absolutely illegal!

Again, just like spamming, trolling, violating ToS, death and other threats, insults... all by you.

I will not use and distribute ZeroNet under GPLv3-only because most contributors voted for GPLv3+!

Code from users who voted for GPLv3-or-later can be distributed under GPLv3-only.

[ghost]

https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-559163860

Looks we have reached the end of active users. Looks like most of the votes for GPL3+. I'm fine with both GPL3 and MIT.
So should I change it to GPL3+ or what's next?

Yes @HelloZeroNet change it to GPLv3+! @imachug manipulated the results today!

[imachug]

@HelloZeroNet Can you please get rid of the spam?

Guys we have IRC for that.

[filips123]

@SwissConfederation

you requoting yourself and your stupid things what you read randomly on the net

[ghost]

No spam here, but fraud! Even @HelloZeroNet said very clearly GPLv3+ get the most votes! These page is now archived again.

[filips123]

These page is now archived again.

Yes, sure. But don't forget to keep your comments in the archive.

[ghost]

@HelloZeroNet reflect the voting result! Please replace the license with GPLv3+!

#2273 (comment)

Looks we have reached the end of active users. Looks like most of the votes for GPL3+. I'm fine with both GPL3 and MIT.
So should I change it to GPL3+ or what's next?

Yes @HelloZeroNet change it to GPLv3+! @imachug manipulated the results today!

[ghost]

I going to send a pull request with the new license in a few minutes. As @HelloZeroNet clearly said and everyone knows it "most of the votes for GPL3+" so the new license is going to be GPLv3+! Period. End of discussion.

[imachug]

So should I change it to GPL3+ or what's next?

clearly said

:man_facepalming:

[filips123]

most of the votes for GPL3+

Most, but not all. And some even said to only allow GPLv3-only.

[SuperSandro2000]

I want to switch to I don't care. Feel free to do any License you find appropriate. Also maybe restrict the repo to older user accounts. The spam is unbelievable.

[imachug]

@SuperSandro2000 please post "I don't care" as a a single comment.

[SuperSandro2000]

I don't care

[imachug]

@HelloZeroNet BTW (actually not), do you think it makes sense to allow passing IV to eciesEncrypt instead of generating it randomly? It looks like it's almost useless, do you think we can get rid of it?

[ghost]

I did contributed to UiRequest.py and if you put any other license to ZeroNet which is not GPLv3+ I demand to delete my contribution. @HelloZeroNet Not owning the software at all and is certainly not him to decide which license is used!

I was who reported that @HelloZeroNet violates more than 3 different licenses which is in itself a crime! Not to mention he was knowingly distributing the software in an illegal manner. Either you reopen and merge my commits with the new license or I sue Tamas Kocsis!

[ghost]

@HelloZeroNet BTW (actually not), do you think it makes sense to allow passing IV to eciesEncrypt instead of generating it randomly? It looks like it's almost useless, do you think we can get rid of it?

I need your full legal name and an address. I going to sue you @imachug! You manipulated the voting today and now you try to replace things before even fixed the license. This repository is violating for years many licenses and far as I'm concerned this repository is absolutely illegal!

[ghost]

@HelloZeroNet post here your address or I contact the Hungarian police to find it out and sue you!

[imachug]

@SwissConfederation Sorry but I don't want to publish my full name and especially address.

[ghost]

Send to the email of [email protected]

[imachug]

@SwissConfederation "publically" includes you.

[ghost]

Sending me your address is not public. Privately sharing it with me because you agree to resolve this matter on a court. Right? You need to take responsibility for your actions!

[ghost]

I'm not kidding I demand that Tamas Kocsis alias @HelloZeroNet and @imachug providing me they address and name because I going to sue. The reason of the lawsuit is clear. I was received an illegal software and I was not credited for my contribution which is also illegal under international copyright law. @HelloZeroNet must give credit to me! Replace the faulty license or I pursue this matter and not stopping until don't bring both of you to court!

[ghost]

https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2273#issuecomment-559163860

Looks we have reached the end of active users. Looks like most of the votes for GPL3+. I'm fine with both GPL3 and MIT.
So should I change it to GPL3+ or what's next?

Look at these! These guys are criminals! I assume both of you living in the European Union. You either comply with my demands or I contact not the national polices but the Europol!

[rarbg]

Can you all stop with the BS ?
Move your chat to some other type of communication.
Receiving 100 mails just because you can't figure out your life is
stupid.

[ghost]

I sending a report to EUROPOL under intellectual property crimes. Urgently replace the license with GPLv3+ or you going to be arrested and this repository and the zeronet.io website going to be taken offline I guarantee!

[filips123]

I sending a report to EUROPOL under intellectual property crimes.

Don't forget to report yourself for death threats, other threats, insults and other.

[ghost]

I contacting FBI Cyber Crime Center also to make sure this GitHub repository and the webhosting of zeronet.io is goes down.

[rarbg]

Shut the fuck up kid

On 2019-11-28 20:32, Swiss Confederation wrote:

I sending a report to EUROPOL under intellectual property crimes.
Urgently replace the license with GPLv3+ or you going to be arrested
and this repository and the zeronet.io website going to be taken
offline I guarantee!

[ghost]

You going to fucking replace the license how contributors wanted to be GPLv3+ or I send both the FBI and EUROPOL to find all of you @imachug @filips123 and @HelloZeroNet! Don't play me man because you burn yourself!

Fucking criminals!

[filips123]

Don't forget to report yourself for death threats, other threats, insults and other.

[ghost]

Ohh shut your mouth you pig! Without me this voting not even started! I was wanted to help but fucking retards like you attacked me. Do you have proof? You don't even know my name BUT I DO KNOW YOURS! I also know the name of @imachug and Tamas Kocsis of course! All 3 of you going to be reported to the FBI and EUROPOL if the license is not replaced urgently!!!!!

[rarbg]

First i don't give two shits about zeronet's license.
Second i don't give two shits about you.
Third i've never attacked you but threatening reports to anyone due to
your personal preference on a license of an open source code is stupid.
If you want to pursue your personal copyrights you should contact your
lawyers , they will tell you to fuck off or if they don't like you they
will take your money and then tell you to fuck off.
Anyways fuck off and move your brain spill to somewhere else.

On 2019-11-28 20:40, Swiss Confederation wrote:

Ohh shut your mouth you pig! Without me this voting not even started!
I was wanted to help but fucking retards like you attacked me. Do you
have proof? You don't even know my name BUT I DO KNOW YOURS! I also
know the name of @imachug and Tamas Kocsis of course! All 3 of you
going to be reported to the FBI and EUROPOL if the license is
not replaced urgently!!!!!

[ghost]

Look at you. Who the fuck are you? You just jumping here like some monkey because you are bored as fuck. Go somewhere else you nazi shit until you can! Where you was until now jerkoff?

[ghost]

It is not my personal preference you retarded fuck! GPLv3+ is what ALL CONTRIBUTORS voted for! Second ZeroNet is distributed illegally in this very moment! Even your repository is illegal!

[ghost]

@rarbg "This branch is 2751 commits behind HelloZeroNet:master." You are a joke my friend! At least you can try using https://github.com/apps/pull

[ghost]

@HelloZeroNet REPLACE THE LICENSE WITH GPLv3+ URGENTLY BECAUSE MOST CONTRIBUTORS VOTED FOR THAT AND YOU CAN'T KEEP DISTRIBUTING ZERONET ILLEGALLY!

[ghost]

You will see I will distribute ZeroNet using GPLv3+ license and you can't do shit about it! I even sell it and register a patent in Switzerland!

[ghost]

I was even wanted to donate 5000 CHF but fuck you, better keep it to myself than give it to criminals!

[filips123]

MOST CONTRIBUTORS VOTED FOR THAT

Most voted for GPLv3-or-later and some voted for GPLv3-only. and because GPLv3-or-later can be licensed as GPLv3-only, this is actually the correct license we could currently use.

[DaniellMesquita]

BSD3

[ppsfassa]

i don't care

[imachug]

@DaniellMesquita Just to make sure: this will license your code under BSD3 but we will be able to use it in a GPLv3 project.

[ghost]

You see @imachug ? If you not misleading the contributors from the very beginning, censoring my pull requests and issues I opened than you would not need to explain to these people one by one why and how the licenses works.

What do you think why I'm here? Not for fun that's for sure! I want to work with ZeroNet but it can't be used in production until the license in not replaced with GPLv3+! ZeroNet has a great potential but @HelloZeroNet holding this project back! It would be more powerful if its developed by the community not by one guy who claims copyright over other peoples contributions. I'm referring to the fact that he closed my pull request copied code what he liked and merged in his name without giving me credit whatsoever. Under GPL requirements you are required to give me credit for my contribution!

I was even opened pull requests to fix the license: https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/pull/2330 and https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/pull/2331 both if which closed "because he want to do it by himself". I telling you since I did have a pull request, now you can't even replace the license! You need to open the pull request and merge it otherwise you can't switch to GPLv3 either! That would be another copyright infringement! Disgusting that @HelloZeroNet does everything to avoid giving me credit even violates copyright for this reason! This practice must cease immediately!

@filips123 always ask why need the COPYING file, for example there is GIMP repository https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/mainline/LICENSE (GPLv3+) or Handbrake https://github.com/HandBrake/HandBrake/blob/master/LICENSE (GPLv2+) and even Bitcoin is using COPYING file https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING (MIT)

Merge https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/pull/2330 or https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/pull/2331 and all problem solved in less than a minute. ZeroNet will be GPLv3+ and everyone is happy.

Do not tell me GPLv3-only is cool because it is not! Who the hell would need an only? Tell me just one reason why GPLv3-only is better than GPLv3+! Just one reason! I'm waiting.

[imachug]

@SwissConfederation Everyone just got tired of you already. You say that your code was stolen all the time but you don't listen to us. You say we need to switch to GPLv3+ but you don't give us time to collect agreements from the contributors. Please just calm down.

[ghost]

I don't calm down! More than 3 weeks ago I reported problem with the license and yet @HelloZeroNet is distributing the software! This is not possible and it is criminal! Not to mention the voting is misleading and you have changed the results by yourself disregarding the will of contributors. You are a fraud and you should be ashamed by yourself! If someone notifies for example GIMP that has licensing issues they would immediately stop the distribution of that software and not harassing and discrediting those who want to fix it.

This voting is absolutely nonsense! It shouldn't be started in the first place! Need to replace the license and not waiting for weeks for some stupid voting where the votes clearly manipulated by you! The distribution all these time was absolutely illegal and it is still illegal you can say whatever you want. This project is ruined and you can blame yourself and only yourself not me who had made more than 4 attempts to replace the license.

Every contributor has made they contributions under GPLv2 wrongfully while ZeroNet violated more than 3 different licenses for years! We are not changing the license to anything but GPL and so the voting is absolutely unnecessary. Why need to replace the license? Because ZeroNet is distributed illegally!

Voting about license change only can be done if there is no license violations and even than not possible to change to anything else but GPLv3! Is this clear?

[filips123]

More than 3 weeks ago I reported problem with the license

Yes, what problem? Just simple license incompatibility that is actually not very critical and just because of some incompatible statement which will probably never be actually important.

Not to mention the voting is misleading and you have changed the results by yourself disregarding the will of contributors.

How? Not to mention that you want to completely ignore the will of contributions and license as GPLv3+ without any agreement from contributions and when you can clearly see that not all contributions voted for GPLv3+.

You are a fraud and you should be ashamed by yourself!

Just like you with spamming, trolling, death threats...

If someone notifies for example GIMP that has licensing issues they would immediately stop the distribution of that software and not harassing and discrediting those who want to fix it.

If someone notifies for example GIMP that has licensing issues they would immediately stop the distribution of that software and not harassing and discrediting those who want to fix it.

Yes, sure. They would stop distributing one of the most popular projects just because of simple incompatible.

We are not changing the license to anything but GPL and so the voting is absolutely unnecessary.

GPLv3-only and GPLv3-or-later are different licences while GPLv2 and GPLv3 are the same?

FSF clearly stated that this is not true and we need agreement from contributions to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3.

Why need to replace the license?

Or replace incompatible dependencies.

Voting about license change only can be done if there is no license violations and even than not possible to change to anything else but GPLv3! Is this clear?

Yes it is possible. You can change license to any other open source licence if contributions agree. This already happen million times in various open source projects.

[ghost]

@filips123 you received a response from the Free Software Foundation which said to you;

"Anyone who received the software under GPL will able to distribute it under GPL!" - FSF

This means, that if you put any other license on ZeroNet than GPLv3+, I and other more than 1.900 people who forked ZeroNet will be forced to use a GPLv3 license because it is not possible to use GPLv2!

[filips123]

?

[ghost]

https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/archive/py3.zip I can use a GPLv3+ license on this archive right now if I want so this voting makes no sense!

Free Software Foundation said to you in email: "Anyone who received the software under GPL will able to distribute it under GPL!"

Because GPLv2 on ZeroNet violates other licenses I'm actually forced to use a GPLv3 license on this archive before distribution and nobody can do anything to stop this! Is this clear?

[filips123]

FSF Said:

Is consent from contributors needed if license violations are going to
be fixed with switching to GPLv3 which is compatible with
dependencies? What if switch to another open source license is needed
for this?

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

[filips123]

I can use a GPLv3+ license on this archive right now if I want so this voting makes no sense!

Explain.

Because GPLv2 on ZeroNet violates other licenses I'm actually forced to use a GPLv3 license on this archive before distribution and nobody can do anything to stop this! Is this clear?

You can't distribute ZeroNet under GPLv3 unless copyright holders agree. GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licences.

[ghost]

I'm not changing the license! :laughing: You are the one who want to change the license from GPL to something else! I'm complying with license requirements! I can use right now a GPLv3+ license on ZeroNet and I need no permission whatsoever from any of you. (I'm also a contributor just to be clear on that.)

https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/archive/py3.zip I can use a GPLv3+ license on this archive right now if I want so this voting makes no sense!

Free Software Foundation said to you in email: "Anyone who received the software under GPL will able to distribute it under GPL!"

Because GPLv2 on ZeroNet violates other licenses I'm actually forced to use a GPLv3 license on this archive before distribution and nobody can do anything to stop this! Is this clear?

[filips123]

GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licenses. And FSF also said that you need agreement.

[filips123]

FSF Said:

Is consent from contributors needed if license violations are going to
be fixed with switching to GPLv3 which is compatible with
dependencies? What if switch to another open source license is needed
for this?

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

[ghost]

You was lied to them so they did not understand what is the problem. Let me be clear. ZeroNet can't use a GPLv2 license on the software and because of this I can use a GPLv3+ license on https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/archive/py3.zip before I choose to distribute it! It would be illegal and criminal to keep distributing using version 2 so I'm forced to use version 3 of the GPL!

[filips123]

You also can't use GPLv3! If you do, it will also be illegal and criminal.

[filips123]

You was lied to them so they did not understand what is the problem

How?

[ghost]

What you don't understand? I can use GPL on the software but NOT GPLv2!!!! I'm forced to use GPLv3 and I don't need permission from anyone in order to comply with the licenses included in the source code! I did not given any permission to Tamas Kocsis to close my pull request and copy my contribution without giving me credit so I don't give a sh** about your problems. I legally can use GPLv3+ on ZeroNet. Period.

[filips123]

No you can't! Period.

[ghost]

I can and I currently using a GPLv3+ license on ZeroNet. Nothing you can do to stop this! :1st_place_medal:

https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/archive/py3.zip I can use a GPLv3+ license on this archive right now if I want so this voting makes no sense!

Free Software Foundation said to you in email: "Anyone who received the software under GPL will able to distribute it under GPL!"

Because GPLv2 on ZeroNet violates other licenses I'm actually forced to use a GPLv3 license on this archive before distribution and nobody can do anything to stop this! Is this clear?

[filips123]

Read my comments you retard!

So FSF od also retarded?

I can use GPL on the software but NOT GPLv2!!!

GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licences. You can't use GPLv3 if software is released under GPLv2.

[filips123]

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade option in GPLv2.

[ghost]

I received the software with a wrong version of the GPL license and so I can use a GPLv3+ on ZeroNet!

Free Software Foundation said to you in email: "Anyone who received the software under GPL will able to distribute it under GPL!"

I would only need permission from the copyright holder (including myself) when I wish to use a BSD3 license on ZeroNet which is not the case.

[filips123]

I can't help you if you can't read...

[ghost]

You just don't understand English my Slovenian friend...

[filips123]

And you also don't understand American (FSF's) English.

[ghost]

With all my respect @filips123, listen now very carefully:

Since ZeroNet is released under a GPL license copyright permission to distribute the software under GPL is already granted! Because it would be illegal and criminal to distribute ZeroNet using version 2 of the license I'm allowed legally (and forced) to use a GPLv3 license!

[filips123]

You can only use GPLv3 if ZeroNet is licensed under GPLv2+, which it isn't. Because it is not, you need agreement from contributions.

[ghost]

That would be relevant only if there is no license violation! Right in this moment, I have no choice but use a GPLv3+ license!

With all my respect @filips123, listen now very carefully:

Since ZeroNet is released under a GPL license copyright permission to distribute the software under GPL is already granted! Because it would be illegal and criminal to distribute ZeroNet using version 2 of the license I'm allowed legally (and forced) to use a GPLv3 license!

Only need agreement from contributors if I want to distribute ZeroNet using a different license like Apache 2.0 etc. I'm already granted permission to distribute the software under GPL and this is not revocable!

[filips123]

You should also read more carefully:

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the change.

[ghost]

With all my respect @filips123, listen now very carefully:

Since ZeroNet is released under a GPL license copyright permission to distribute the software under GPL is already granted! Because it would be illegal and criminal to distribute ZeroNet using version 2 of the license I'm allowed legally (and forced) to use a GPLv3 license!

[thesoftwarejedi]

@SwissConfederation Please go contact the authorities and stop posting here. Anything you post will be used against you. Cease contact immediately and open investigation with all authorities. Go, do it, immediately. And stop posting here.

[ghost]

What a joke you are jedi :hankey: . :us: :fire: I don't give a sh** about American laws. Do you know what is the Swiss Confederation the European HQ of the Central Intelligence Agency? They are afraid to come out from the Consulate and Embassy because here CIA activities are under the Swiss Penal Code considered crimes against humanity.

I hate America for obvious reasons, imperialist, capitalist and terrorist system and everyone in my eyes who not speaking up against this are legally speaking complicit in war crimes!

When I get to ZeroNet, I do have serious legal concerns but I strongly support ZeroNet in my own way. If you American brainwashed maniac just think for a second a GPLv3+ license is perfect for ZeroNet and not looks like have any other options!

Let's be clear right now distributing ZeroNet is absolutely illegal and criminal in the Swiss Confederation just as in your honeypot United States of America. If these license violations not stopped you will find yourself in a serious legal trouble!

What kind of developer is who claims he using Bitcoin crypto and BitTorrent and does everything to mislead the public or limit the license on such a great software like ZeroNet?

As I said, because ZeroNet released under a GPL license everyone already waived copyrights. Once you grant permission under GPL there is no way to restrict my use and share of the software with my changes, however it is illegal to share ZeroNet using a GPLv2 license and so I don't have other choice than use a GPLv3+ license on ZeroNet. You neither have a choice. GPLv2 is terminated when I informed @HelloZeroNet about the issue. That was 3 weeks ago and knowingly distributed the software illegally all this time since the initial report!

Not like I care much because as I said I can and I will use a GPLv3+ license on ZeroNet regardless of your stupid voting. Yes, stupid and useless voting. When I hear that people voted for licenses anything than GPL I literally fall of my seat!

There is more than 1,900 forks of ZeroNet and each repository owner received ZeroNet under GPL. Meaning they can and will always able to distribute under GPL. The problem is that nobody should can use legally a GPLv2 on ZeroNet so they must replace the license with GPLv3 which makes it legal!

Let's say if future releases of ZeroNet is relicensed to anything but GPL, that would grant additional rights to those who already receives ZeroNet under GPL. They are able to use any GPLv3 license whatever is GPL-3.0 or GPL-3.0-or-later!

This would make ZeroNet available under 3 different licenses! One would have MIT other GPL-3.0 and another with GPL-3.0-or-later! Think about that.

[filips123]

I hate America for obvious reasons, imperialist, capitalist and terrorist system and everyone in my eyes who not speaking up against this are legally speaking complicit in war crimes!

You hate the USA and capitalism and then you care about simple license incompatibility?

What kind of developer is who claims he using Bitcoin crypto and BitTorrent and does everything to mislead the public or limit the license on such a great software like ZeroNet?

What?

You neither have a choice.

Except using alternative dependencies, using GPLv3-only, using MIT...

Not like I care much because as I said I can and I will use a GPLv3+ license on ZeroNet regardless of your stupid voting. Yes, stupid and useless voting.

So you want to distribute it under GPLv3-or-later without agreement from contributors? That's also illegal.

When I hear that people voted for licenses anything than GPL I literally fall of my seat!

Yes?

Let's say if future releases of ZeroNet is relicensed to anything but GPL, that would grant additional rights to those who already receives ZeroNet under GPL.

Yes?

This would make ZeroNet available under 3 different licenses! One would have MIT other GPL-3.0 and another with GPL-3.0-or-later! Think about that.

This is good.

And just that you know, only core libraries would be licensed as MIT, the project as a whole would stay GPL. And this would be better for ZeroNet and community, as it would make it possible to easily extend ZeroNet in third-party solutions.

[ghost]

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPLv2)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
§ 2:

 These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

This means voting about what each contributor wishes to be the License of ZeroNet, example BSD3, LAX etc is nonsense.

There is no such thing as you own a line of code and the other contributor owns another! Just to make it clear, because I seen here people claiming different licenses for they contributions!

§ 1:

 You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

Each contributor made the contributions with GPLv2 in mind, so because that license legally can't be used on ZeroNet and because under GPL everyone already received rights to distribute the software under GPL, a GPLv3 license must be used (including this repository!)

Oh, and yeah, there is no such thing as revoking a GPL license so I can, I do and legally obligated to distribute ZeroNet using GPLv3+.

[thesoftwarejedi]

Please contact the appropriate authorities immediately! This is outrageous and must be stopped!

[saber28]

GPLv3 and Lax

[ghost]

@saber28 do you accept switching to either GPLv3 or later or to GPLv3-only?

What kind of voting is this? :thinking:

In the USA you can vote for either Democrats or Republicans! You will never see a voting which says:
If you vote for the Green Party you accept switching to either Democrats or Republicans! :nauseated_face:

You get it? Votes are always need to be specific!

[SuperSandro2000]

In the USA

I am in Germany. In Germany we can choose between one of many parties. Earlier today I had the broad choosing of several breads. Not only 2 but I think we had 3 different types. Can you imagine that? 3 different types of bread!?

you can vote for either Democrats or Republicans!

wrong, too. You have more options that are not as popular.

You will never

This is fundamentally wrong in a whole cause you will eventually.

If you vote for the Green Party you accept switching to either Democrats or Republicans!

If they go into coalition which happens all the time in Europe than this sentence is written a bit awkwardly but not wrong.

Votes are always need to be specific!

This vote is specific.

[rllola]

I don't care

[BenMcLean]

Switch to Apache. GPL is way too restrictive.

[imachug]

@TheNain38 You are the only person who voted for GPLv3-only. Do you think GPLv3+ would be okay?

[imachug]

Damn @ExtremelyMassiveStar if he works in a bank it doesn't mean he has any malicious intentions..

[BenMcLean]

Everyone who works in a bank and has interest in projects like ZeroNet or Bitcoin, has malicious intentions

Whoah, hold your horses there, partner. People's personal opinions do not represent the companies they work for. Also, banks aren't some evil conspiracy and Bitcoin isn't some magical solution that's going to defeat the evil conspiracy.

My interest in ZeroNet is that I'm for free speech and opposed to the control over political discussion that Facebook and Twitter has amassed.

The problem with GPL is how it's viral. Imagine for example that I wanted to make a plugin for the Godot game engine that allowed tracking leaderboards for games on ZeroNet. Godot could never adopt anything like that as part of their core project, not because they wouldn't want to (irrelevant to this discussion) but because GPL is viral, so all the rest of their stuff would have to be GPL also. It's better to have something like the LGPL where you can just use it as a library, so that the license only affects your code.

[filips123]

but again this is not a license switch

Yes it is! The reason doesn't matter, and you need agreement from contributors in any case.

[filips123]

It is NOT a license switch!

It IS license switch.

someone can be jailed

You can also be jailed for death threats.

Switching license is only possible if there is no license violations and if that's the case, again, there is nothing preventing me or anyone else to use a GPLv3+ license in our distributions.

You can't use GPLv3 without agreement from contributors.

---

Again, answer from FSF:

Is consent from contributors needed if license violations are going to
be fixed with switching to GPLv3 which is compatible with
dependencies? What if switch to another open source license is needed
for this?

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

[filips123]

If you can't read, here is text-to-speech of FSF answer.

[filips123]

Is consent from contributors needed if license violations are going to
be fixed with switching to GPLv3 which is compatible with
dependencies? What if switch to another open source license is needed
for this?

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to
change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the
change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is
if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade
option in GPLv2.

[filips123]

Rights were already granted to you only under GPLv2!

[imachug]

Most != everyone, @TheNain38 voted for GPLv3-only so you can't license ZeroNet under GPLv3+.

[filips123]

All contributions need to agree with GPLv3-or-later. And as some (@TheNain38) explicitly said that they only GPLv3-only, you can't distribute their work under GPLv3-or-later. And you also can't change license of contributions made by contributions which still haven't agreed.

[imachug]

You can relicense your own code, not other's code.

[filips123]

Rights were only given under GPLv2 terms, not under GPLv3!

[filips123]

You can NOT legally use GPLv3!!! You need agreement from ALL contributions first.

[imachug]

Can you please stop upvoting your own comments

[imachug]

You MUST but it doesn't mean you MAY.

[filips123]

Maybe this? But if you can't read, I can't help you...

[rarbg]

Once again please move your discussion to a chat appropriate for it

[imachug]

Distributing ZeroNet might be illegal but the only person who can sue us is some library author. That is most likely not going to happen anytime soon.

[rarbg]

I don't really care what the license is. I only care not to get 50+
useless emails per day from this ticket. I can't follow the process if 9
out of 10 comments are pure spam of stupidity

On 2019-12-06 15:24, Extremely Massive Star wrote:

Actually, this voting should be closed by now. The new license is
GPLv3+ because most of the contributors voted for that and that is
legal! @rarbg

[filips123]

I MUST distribute ZeroNet under a GPL license and I do use GPLv3+ absolutely legally!

Just don't distribute ZeroNet yourself if you care so much as incompatibilities.

And AGAIN, distributing ZeroNet under GPLv3 without agreement from contributions is as illegal as distributing it under GPLv2 or even more.

[filips123]

We can sue you for distributing ZeroNet under GPLv3 without our agreement and agreement from ALL contributions.

[filips123]

RIGHTS WERE ONLY GRANTED UNDER GPLV2! DISTRIBUTING UNDER GPLV3 IS ALSO ILLEGAL!

Everyone, sorry about all capital letters. But it seems extremly massive stars can't understand otherwise.

[filips123]

1. Rights were only given under GPLv2 to distribute under GPLv2 terms.
2. 
   
   • You are knowing distribution under GPLv3 without agreement from all contributors is also illegal.
   
   
   • Death threats are also illegal.
   
   
3. Then go to jail...
4. You must not distribute ZeroNet under GPLv3 without agreement. Just stop distributing ZeroNet until isues are fixed and be quiet. Thanks!

[BenMcLean]

You jumped too late into this conversation. Do you even noticed that ZeroNet is from the beginning licensed using GPL?!

Yeah, I thought you guys could just switch to whatever you wanted and were trying to decide.

One thing is for sure, you will never able to use ZeroNet in a close sourced program I think exactly that is your goal.

K well I wouldn't want to use ZeroNet in its present state for anything anyway since it has major problems with security, anonymity and scalability. But I was just sharing the general opinion that think it would be best for efforts like this to be available to re-use in all types of programs.

[rarbg]

Shut the fuck up kid

On 2019-12-09 09:57, USCyberCommand wrote:

Everyone! Go and replace your license on your copy of ZeroNet with a
GPLv3+ license! Everyone must stop distributing ZeroNet with GPLv2
because it is illegal and can land you in jail!

Contributors in this repository already agreed to use GPLv3+ but
the Hungarian fascist refusing to replace the license so you must do
in yours!

[rarbg]

Shut the fuck up trash

On 2019-12-09 09:59, USCyberCommand wrote:

Filter your emails! How many times I need to tell you fucking retard.

[imachug]

I think that #2269 would be a better place but it's locked so I have to post here

Some "good" news: it's unlikely that gevent-websocket's author will ever reply (https://gitlab.com/noppo/gevent-websocket/issues/19) so we'll have to make our own library.

[filips123]

Could we use websockets library? It's licensed under BSD-3-Clause and it's not dead.

However, I don't know if it is compatible with Gevent. It only supports Python 3.6.1 so we would have to drop support for Python 3.4 and 3.5. However, both of them are already EOL by the Python development team so we would have to check how many people are using them and if we can drop support for them.

But even without license issues, it would be still good to replace some outdated/discontinued libraries with more modern ones.

[ghost]

Hi!

I was notified by someone on IRC about this discussion. I say the same as he told me.
Once you released the software under GPL everyone will able to distribute it under that license.
If the GPLv2 license for violations is terminated on this repository and you replace a few libraries that will not restore your rights to keep using GPLv2!

If someone who has a copy of ZeroNet and the libraries are not replaced in that copy he or she will be required to replace the license in his or her copy before distribution.

I also seen archived copies of this page on archive.org and is very clear for me that you are abusive, disrespectful and shameful.

You are more than urged to replace the license with GPLv3+!

[filips123]

Joined 1 hour ago

Surly this is your first account...

[ghost]

GPLv3+

[ghost]

I'm the 99% right @HelloZeroNet ? You said over 95% of contributors voted for GPLv3+ and even if we don't count by commits (which we should not do ever) than all contributors already agreed to GPLv3+.

Just to clarify, when you contribute to a software which is licensed under GPL than all your contributions is under GPL! You can't change the license once is distributed. ZeroNet is a collective work, neither @HelloZeroNet is allowed to change the license.

Fortunately we are not changing the license from GPL to anything else and this voting already ended. 1 person voted for GPLv3-only over 60+ person voted for GPLv3+.

[HelloZeroNet]

I happy to change the license to anything once I have the statistics of the active code lines currently active paired with the votes.

So we can see how many lines have to be removed to change the licese to MIT, GPL3 or GPL3+

[ghost]

@HelloZeroNet You need to remove code only if you change the license to anything but to GPLv3, otherwise you can replace the license because those who contributed already agreed to release they code under GPL.

Those who voted for anything but GPL can be ignored all together since they code is already out in the wild licensed under GPL.

Once someone licenses his code under GPL there is nothing can be done to relicense his contributions only! ZeroNet is a collective work!

All code is licensed under GPL and nothing can change that. No contributor allowed to remove his code because he later decided that he want to license it under anything but GPL.

[HelloZeroNet]

Could we use websockets library? It's licensed under BSD-3-Clause and it's not dead.

Asyncio and gevent are not really compatible with each other, so it won't work

[ghost]

"Rights are not just individual, they collective!" (Like ZeroNet which licensed under GPL) :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

[filips123]

You need to remove code only if you change the license to anything but to GPLv3

You need agreement for any license change, the new license and reason for change do not matter. The only case when you don't need agreement for GPLv3 change if old license would be GPLv2+.

Asyncio and gevent are not really compatible with each other, so it won't work

Isn't asyncio basically similar to gevent but built in new Python versions? So if support for old Python versions is not really needed, it might be good to rewrite ZeroNet on top of asyncio.

[HelloZeroNet]

Isn't asyncio basically similar to gevent but built in new Python versions? So if support for old Python versions is not really needed, it might be good to rewrite ZeroNet on top of asyncio.

It could be possible, but it would be lot of work and actually I prefer gevent-style async over async/await style. But it's offtopic here.

[ghost]

GPLv2 license is terminated permanently and replacing the libraries will not make it possible in any way to keep using this license. In the other hand I told you a million times that this is not a license change!

Everyone even you are legally obligated to replace the license with either GPLv3 or GPLv3+! If the main repository by some magic will use an MIT license than that will harm seriously ZeroNet because everyone who has a copy of ZeroNet with the GPL license are able to distribute it with any version of GPL except previous ones!

Permission from contributors already granted! Nothing you can do to revoke the rights once you granted under GPL which includes the right to distribute!

[filips123]

Rights were only granted to distribute ZeroNet under GPLv2 terms only! Using GPLv3 is license change, and as FSF ALSO said, you need permission from contributors for that!

That's why there are GPLv2-only and GPLv2-or-later licenses. With GPLv2-only, which is used by ZeroNet, contributions only granted permission to distribute code under GPLv2 terms only. In this case, you need agreement.

[ghost]

Contributors granted rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL and since we all have guaranteed rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL but it would be illegal and a criminal offense to distribute it with the GPLv2 license with what we received it, we are all obligated by international law to use any of the GPLv3 licenses!

There is no such thing as you demand everyone to stop distributing ZeronNet under GPL because you was stupid and made a mistake which resulted in termination of the license!

No additional permission whatsoever needed for this! All rights are granted! This repository is however can be subject of criminal prosecution.

[filips123]

Contributors granted rights to distribute under GPLv2 only! It would be illegal and a criminal offence to distribute it with the GPLv3 license because not all contributors agreed with this!

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade option in GPLv2.

[ghost]

This is not a license change you maniac! You don't understand anything so better you just shut your mouth and listen carefully!

Contributors granted rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL and since we all have guaranteed rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL but it would be illegal and a criminal offense to distribute it with the GPLv2 license with what we received it, we are all obligated by international law to use any of the GPLv3 licenses!

There is no such thing as you demand everyone to stop distributing ZeronNet under GPL because you was stupid and made a mistake which resulted in termination of the license!

No additional permission whatsoever needed for this! All rights are granted! This repository is however can be subject of criminal prosecution.

[filips123]

So FSF is maniac?

If you can't read or understand FSF email, just shut up!

[filips123]

Is consent from contributors needed if license violations are going to be fixed with switching to GPLv3 which is compatible with dependencies?

You will need explicit permission from the relevant copyright holders to change the license of a work regardless of why you are doing the change. As above, the only situation where you don't need permission is if it has already been given in the form of the "or later" upgrade option in GPLv2.

[ghost]

They talk about CHANGE! What you are trying to do is preventing everyone to distribute ZeroNet because you want to CHANGE the license!

Contributors granted rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL and since we all have guaranteed rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL but it would be illegal and a criminal offense to distribute it with the GPLv2 license with what we received it, we are all obligated by international law to use any of the GPLv3 licenses!

There is no such thing as you demand everyone to stop distributing ZeronNet under GPL because you was stupid and made a mistake which resulted in termination of the license!

No additional permission whatsoever needed for this! All rights are granted! This repository is however can be subject of criminal prosecution.

How you wish to prevent people to keep distributing ZeroNet under GPL? Tell me you fck! You will call them?

[filips123]

They talk about CHANGE!

Using GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 IS CHANGE OF LICENSE!!

How you wish to prevent people to keep distributing ZeroNet under GPL?

And you think all forks and users will magically replace LICENSE file with GPLv3?

[imachug]

Contributors allowed us to distribute their work under GPLv2, not GPL.

[ghost]

We have no option because this repository is full of brainfucked people like you who don't understand that we have rights to keep distributing ZeroNet and because we legally can't do under GPLv2 we are obligated by international law to use any later version of the SAME LICENSE which is GPL! You can't just say you alone will prevent thousand of people distributing ZeroNet under a valid and compatible GPL license! You must do the same!

Contributors granted rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL and since we all have guaranteed rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL but it would be illegal and a criminal offense to distribute it with the GPLv2 license with what we received it, we are all obligated by international law to use any of the GPLv3 licenses!

There is no such thing as you demand everyone to stop distributing ZeronNet under GPL because you was stupid and made a mistake which resulted in termination of the license!

No additional permission whatsoever needed for this! All rights are granted! This repository is however can be subject of criminal prosecution.

[filips123]

GPLv3 IS NOT SAME LICENSE AS GPLv2

[filips123]

And stop quoting yourself and read FSF's reply...

[ghost]

@HelloZeroNet replace that fucking license with GPLv3+ and close this issue!

Contributors granted rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL and since we all have guaranteed rights to distribute ZeroNet under GPL but it would be illegal and a criminal offense to distribute it with the GPLv2 license with what we received it, we are all obligated by international law to use any of the GPLv3 licenses!

There is no such thing as you demand everyone to stop distributing ZeronNet under GPL because you was stupid and made a mistake which resulted in termination of the license!

No additional permission whatsoever needed for this! All rights are granted! This repository is however can be subject of criminal prosecution.

[filips123]

Replacing GPLv2 with GPLv3 without consent from contributors would be illegal!

[ghost]

Illegal is that your mom standing on the street and selling her body! Not that we thousands of people distributing ZeroNet legally! This repository is full of abnormal people who have no fucking clue about licenses (that is why the GPLv2 is terminated)!

You can't prevent anyone to distribute ZeroNet with GPLv3! By law this repository should be closed now for more than a month!

[filips123]

Your account should also be banned for more than a month... And just that you know, death and other threats are also illegal.

[ghost]

You fuck! I trying to help and all you do is bullshitting here! I'm the reason why this issue started in the first place and now we all see that most contributors agree with distributing ZeroNet under GPLv3+! You and @imachug can suck my dick!

@HelloZeroNet replace the license with GPLv3+ and close this issue!!!!!!

[filips123]

Most, not all!

[HelloZeroNet]

Actually I think MIT license would be better, then we can still distribute zeronet-win (and other distributions that include the requirements as well) with GPL3 or similar.

[filips123]

@HelloZeroNet It would be better to split ZeroNet into more modular libraries which would be licensed under MIT license and the main project which would be licensed under GPLv3. This would allow developers to create custom solutions built on ZeroNet which would use those libraries which still required to distribute ZeroNet as a whole with source code.

Of course this would require quite a lot of work with rewritign ZeroNet but the final result would be that it would be easier for developers to do custom solutions with ZeroNet.

[HelloZeroNet]

Why not put the whole code under MIT?

[filips123]

This would also be OK, but it might still be good to have some "protection" for project as whole which GPL offers. But in any case, we would need agreement from contributors...

[HelloZeroNet]

Btw ipfs-go is changing it license from MIT to Apache2, it would be better choice: https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/issues/6302

[filips123]

It is changing to dual-licensed MIT + Apache 2, actually just because of GPLv2 compatiblility.

[Kusoneko]

GPLv3 and Lax
I don't have any code contributed currently, but if I ever put in the effort, I think making the core GPLv3 and anything else under more permissive licenses such as MIT to allow people to use ZeroNet in other ways is the way to go.

Also, this thread is a massive wild ride with all of these deleted accounts trying to force the change to GPLv3+.

[radfish]

I don't care

[filips123]

BitTorrent Open Source License, which is used by current BenCode implementation, is incompatible with all GPL licenses.

[ghost]

This issue should be closed and the license should be replaced with GPLv3+.
@HelloZeroNet close the issue and replace the license!

[ghost]

Dear contributors, please read how ZeroNet can be censored by one guy at his own wishes!

ZeroNet can be censored! https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2361

[ghost]

@JeremyRand

ZeroNet censoring .bit domains and one guy has the availability to remove any .bit tld from the entire ZeroNet network!!!!

See: https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/issues/2361

[imachug]

address@hidden

I'd like to send a mail as well, please reveal the address.

[jsxof]

@TheBlackBearEatsYou Doesn't this vote apply to previous contributors though? Also, I think that your contribution is too small to be considered copyrightable, making the whole situation a bit similiar to the "Is hello world copyrightable" problem.

By the way, I think you didn't state what happens to new contributions. I believe it'd be great to avoid that problem by stating that new contributions can be relicensed (?) because that might impose some problems here.

[jsxof]

After reading through your discussion, I'd like to point out some facts. To begin with - no, that MIME type detection code isn't copyrightable, as although it has the exact same idea, it has a different form.

Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general.

~ Wikipedia

[jsxof]

@copyrightable There have been many cases where someone tried to copyright code as small as "Hello World" and failed to do so, due to the problem I've described.

By the way, I'd personally recommend to report @copyrightable @TheBlackBearEatsYou and @freesoftwareforall , because these accounts seem to belong to the same person and stylographic analysis clearly indicates it.

I'll try to contact someone with more experience in this matter now to confirm my suspicions.

[jsxof]

@copyrightable By excluding a particular problematic part of code from collective work, copyright placed upon it no longer functions in your copy, even if you replicate its functionality with your own code.

If you want real-life examples - the 4.3BSD licensing case exactly expresses that. AT&T showed that they infringe copyright laws by including proprietary software, so they removed it altogether and rewrote it from scratch, just basing on idea of that code.

[filips123]

Again, only under GPLv2!! Is it so hard to understand??

[jsxof]

@copyrightable First of all, I don't know who you're referring to, but although my github account has been made quite recently, my email address and other accounts are a lot older than that. I've had a github account with my real name some time ago, but I abandoned it in 2017 for the same reason why others don't wish to talk with you - some users harassing other users for the sole purpose of pushing through changes.

Second - read what I just said, because you didn't understand it. We can't relicense your portion of code, but we can remove it, and 4.3BSD licensing case explicitely indicates that.

Third - Try to lower your tone. No one's going to take you seriously if your idea of discussion is that you're 100% right and there's no place for change.

[imachug]

Not in ZeroNet's case! It is licensed under GPL and no version is specified (yet) because GPLv2 is terminated!

It's either licensed under GPLv2 or under no license.

[jsxof]

@copyrightable It's still either GPLV2 licensed or under no license. Again, please read about the 4.3BSD case.

I believe it's the right time to leave this discussion for some time, since now I'm getting personal attacks in other places from @copyrightable for just asking about a few simple things. I'll report his other accounts though, and I urge you to do so too.

[shortcutme]

I don't care

[filips123]

It works again.

[canewsin]

MIT/BSD2

[mnlg]

I don't care

[geekless]

GPLv3+

[dldx]

I don't care

[imachug]

It looks like we're going to switch to GPLv3 (as it got most upvotes and is also similar to the old license) so I've made a list of contributors whose contributions definitely have to be removed (regardless of whether it's GPLv3+ or GPLv3-only):

• @MuxZeroNet (#938, #752, #884, #834, #848, #810, #764, #753, #749, #743)
• @grez911 (#1096, #1091, #1082, #1076, #949, #942)
• @rainlime (#618, #617)
• @barrabinfc (#305, #278)
• @0polar (#1926, #1925, #1922, #1923)
• @anoadragon453 (#1819, #1901, #1900, #1146, #1070, #1023)
• @Th3B3st (#826, #825, #821, #819)
• @krzotr (#2449, #2453, #2187, #2179, #1983, #1975)
• @ymsky / nathantym (#38, #37)
• @frerepoulet (#680, #671, #663)
• @aitorpazos (#587)
• @TigerND / jTeego (#96)
• @yowmamasita (#292)
• @AwesomeTurtle / tormath1 (#890)
• @rarbg (#121)
• @hugbubby (#1781, #1741)
• @mishfit (#912, #842)
• @Austin-Williams (#155)
• @EdenSG (#113)
• @Erkan-Yilmaz (#387)
• @shakna-israel (#26)
• @justinwiley (#705)
• @medimatrix (#14)
• @Nodeswitch (#13)
• @Ornataweaver (#2232)
• @RedbHawk (#1281)
• @rcmorano (#687)
• @krikmo (#247)
• @leycec (#952)
• @Derson5 (#708)

[DaniellMesquita]

@imachug

Voting for BSD license doesn't means I will do any claim when my pull requests are for a project which is changing to GPL3.

I'd voted for BSD. But ZN is free to use my contributions in another license.

[filips123]

This is true. If one contributions votes/agrees for one license (BSD) you should also be able to distribute code under any more redistricted license (GPLv3).

[imachug]

True, this is something I wasn't completely sure about so I've decided to be more safe. Will fix.

[canewsin]

Also, are the translations considered as part of the code ?

[imachug]

They aren't code but they are still contributions.

[canewsin]

@imachug i think they are treated with different file licenses like image assets do with cc.

[imachug]

They could be treated differently if it was specified before...

[HelloZeroNet]

I'm ready to change it to GPLv3, but I'm a bit confused if there is separate license.txt for GPLv3 and GPLv3+, because I can't find any other version of it, but all same as https://raw.githubusercontent.com/emacs-mirror/emacs/master/COPYING
Which is GPLv3+ according to wikipedia.

[imachug]

In fact, the license itself doesn't vary, it's the Standard License Header which does:

GPLv3-only:

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, version 3.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

GPLv3+:

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

[adrelanos]

Ivanq:

In fact, the license itself doesn't vary, it's the Standard License Header which does:

It varies. Better use a diff viewer than trying to see it with bare
eyes. Here's the difference:

First:

Free Software Foundation, version 3.

Second:

Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

[imachug]

True, I wasn't showing the license but the Standard License Header.

[HelloZeroNet]

Thanks, I have added the header to the LICENSE file + the standard COPYING:
https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/commit/5fb342a8251d9ee57ad92d95db6a09607adaea42

If its fine this way, then I think we can close this issue.

[imachug]

Great, I wouldn't close this issue yet though, we should get rid of these contributions before.

[HostFat]

How can my translation be used again with the new license?

[imachug]

@HostFat We'll sure replace it soon I guess, unless you are ready to license it under GPLv3.

[HostFat]

Well, I'm ready I guess, what I need to do? :)

[imachug]

Just post a comment "GPLv3" under this issue.

[HostFat]

GPLv3

[imachug]

Thanks, I've updated the list.

[canewsin]

it is better to segregate non code licenses from now,
for eg see here https://choosealicense.com/non-software/
put a note on contributing to this ZeroNet repo readme that non-code license will be treated differently

Non-Software Licenses
Open source software licenses can be also used for non-software works and are often the best choice, especially when the works in question can be edited and versioned as source (e.g., open source hardware designs). Choose an open source license here.

Data, media, etc.
CC0-1.0, CC-BY-4.0, and CC-BY-SA-4.0 are open licenses used for non-software material ranging from datasets to videos. Note that CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 should not be used for software.

Documentation
Any open source software license or open license for media (see above) also applies to software documentation. If you use different licenses for your software and its documentation, be sure to specify that source code examples in the documentation are also licensed under the software license.

Fonts
The SIL Open Font License 1.1 keeps fonts open but allows them to be freely used in other works.

Mixed Projects
If your project contains a mix of software and other material, you can include multiple licenses, as long as you are explicit about which license applies to each part of the project. See the license notice for this site as an example.

usually translations are treated as datasets to main code language strings
even the typo fixes can be treated like this. since I has some legal background with my studies I can interpret these as above.

[canewsin]

@HelloZeroNet
if you need, I will draft some additional info for contribution practices for repository for these type of contributions. This will reduce future headache of spam/fights between contributors.

[imachug]

Yes, please.

[canewsin]

@imachug @HelloZeroNet

>

Contributing to this repo

This repo is governed by GPLv3, same is located at the root of the ZeroNet git repo, unless specified separately all code is governed by that license, contributions to this repo are divided into two key types, key contributions and non-key contributions, key contributions are which, directly affects the code performance, quality and features of software, non key contributions include things like translation datasets, image, graphic or video contributions that does not affect the main usability of software but improves the existing usability of certain thing or feature, these also include tests written with code, since their purpose is to check, whether something is working or not as intended. Unless specified above a contribution is ruled by the type of contribution if there is a conflict between two contributing parties of repo in any case.

[DaniellMesquita]

GPLv3

[HelloZeroNet]

@canewsin:
What if we say:

Any code: GPLv3
Non key contributions include things like translation datasets, image, graphic or video contributions that does not affect the main usability of software but improves the existing usability: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

[canewsin]

@HelloZeroNet cc 3.0 is perfect for non-code contributions, I first had a thought on that, but forgot add it.

[canewsin]

@HelloZeroNet Added cc 4.0, which is translated to more languages than 3.0, check this pull https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/pull/2492

[ghost]

@HelloZeroNet and you (@canewsin) suggested CC license for documentation.
Here is my suggestion:

`
GNU Free Documentation License
Version 1.3, 3 November 2008

Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
https://fsf.org/
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

1. PREAMBLE

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.
Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way
to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible
for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative
works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It
complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft
license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free
software, because free software needs free documentation: a free
program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the
software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals;
it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or
whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License
principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS

This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be
distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a
world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that
work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below,
refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a
licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you
copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission
under copyright law.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
modifications and/or translated into another language.

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall
directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in
part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain
any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles
are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice
that says that the Document is released under this License. If a
section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not
allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero
Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant
Sections then there are none.

The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed,
as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that
the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may
be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
represented in a format whose specification is available to the
general public, that is suitable for revising the document
straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of
pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available
drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or
for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input
to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file
format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart
or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent.
An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount
of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain
ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML
or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple
HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of
transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats
include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by
proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or
processing tools are not generally available, and the
machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word
processors for output purposes only.

The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself,
plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material
this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in
formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means
the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title,
preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

The "publisher" means any person or entity that distributes copies of
the Document to the public.

A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose
title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following
text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a
specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements",
"Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title"
of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a
section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which
states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty
Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this
License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other
implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has
no effect on the meaning of this License.

1. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no
other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept
compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough
number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and
you may publicly display copies.

1. COPYING IN QUANTITY

If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have
printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the
Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the
copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover
Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on
the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify
you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present
the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and
visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition.
Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve
the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated
as verbatim copying in other respects.

If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit
legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit
reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent
pages.

If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy
a computer-network location from which the general network-using
public has access to download using public-standard network protocols
a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material.
If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps,
when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure
that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated
location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an
Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that
edition to the public.

It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the
Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to
give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the
Document.

1. MODIFICATIONS

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution
and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy
of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct
from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions
(which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section
of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version
if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the
Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five),
unless they release you from this requirement.
C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the
Modified Version, as the publisher.
D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications
adjacent to the other copyright notices.
F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice
giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the
terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections
and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add
to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and
publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If
there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one
stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as
given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified
Version as stated in the previous sentence.
J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise
the network locations given in the Document for previous versions
it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section.
You may omit a network location for a work that was published at
least four years before the Document itself, or if the original
publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications",
Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all
the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements
and/or dedications given therein.
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document,
unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers
or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section
may not be included in the Modified Version.
N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements"
or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.

If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or
appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material
copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all
of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the
list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice.
These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.

You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains
nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various
parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has
been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a
standard.

You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a
passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list
of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of
Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or
through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already
includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or
by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of,
you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit
permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License
give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or
imply endorsement of any Modified Version.

1. COMBINING DOCUMENTS

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this
License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified
versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the
Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and
list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its
license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.

The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and
multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single
copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but
different contents, make the title of each such section unique by
adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original
author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number.
Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of
Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.

In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History"
in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled
"History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements",
and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections
Entitled "Endorsements".

1. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS

You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other
documents released under this License, and replace the individual
copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy
that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules
of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all
other respects.

You may extract a single document from such a collection, and
distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a
copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this
License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that
document.

1. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these
copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of
the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on
covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the
electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form.
Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole
aggregate.

1. TRANSLATION

Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may
distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4.
Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special
permission from their copyright holders, but you may include
translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the
original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a
translation of this License, and all the license notices in the
Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include
the original English version of this License and the original versions
of those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between
the translation and the original version of this License or a notice
or disclaimer, the original version will prevail.

If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements",
"Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to Preserve
its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual
title.

1. TERMINATION

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute it is void, and
will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license
from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally,
unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally
terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder
fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to
60 days after the cessation.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, receipt of a copy of some or all of the same material does
not give you any rights to use it.

1. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE

The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the
GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
detail to address new problems or concerns. See
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/.

Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number.
If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this
License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or
of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the
Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version
number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not
as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document
specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of this
License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a
version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the
Document.

1. RELICENSING

"Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any
World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also
provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A
public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A
"Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site
means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.

"CC-BY-SA" means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
license published by Creative Commons Corporation, a not-for-profit
corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco,
California, as well as future copyleft versions of that license
published by that same organization.

"Incorporate" means to publish or republish a Document, in whole or in
part, as part of another Document.

An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this
License, and if all works that were first published under this License
somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or
in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and
(2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.

The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site
under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009,
provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.

ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your documents

To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
the License in the document and put the following copyright and
license notices just after the title page:

Copyright (c)  YEAR  YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".

If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts,
replace the "with...Texts." line with this:

with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.

If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other
combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the
situation.

If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of
free software license, such as the GNU General Public License,
to permit their use in free software.
`

I hope @imachug and @filips123 also fine with this license.