Dual license under MPLv2 & GPLv3+

[chrisballinger]

Currently the GPLv3 license restricts others from distributing derivative works on the App Store because it is incompatible with Apple's DRM scheme. It seems that a dual-license under MPL 2.0 and GPLv3+ could be a solution to this problem. This is how VLC for iOS is distributed and it seems to strike a good balance between user and developer freedom.

License VLC for iOS is bi-licensed under the Mozilla Public License Version 2 as well as the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later. You can modify or redistribute its sources under the conditions of these licenses. Note that additional terms apply for trademarks owned by the VideoLAN association.

[vitalyster]

What benefits you want to achieve with relicensing under more permissive license? More users? Many "derivative works"? I don't think it will be helpful. VLC, being OSS software, is a known "brand" and they really make software which can compete with proprietary alternatives. I don't think ChatSecure at this time can deliver such user experience (e.g. background notifications is a main pain) as proprietary services, even it have "secure messaging".

[ObjColumnist]

Like @chrisballinger said officially Apple don't allow it, although they never check unless someone makes a fuss.

[chrisballinger]

@ObjColumnist It's not that Apple doesn't allow GPL software, it's that copyright owners can take down projects that include GPL code at any time. Right now we can use that to takedown fake copycat apps or people ripping off the code, but it also restricts any other open source projects from re-using the code, even if they are also GPL. It also prevents legitimate forks from emerging from this code base, because they would never be able to be distributed on the App Store.

@vitalyster My main motivation would be to allow more code reuse by other open source developers without having to grant specific exemptions. From my understanding, MPL 2.0 would allow others to distribute derivative works on the App Store while still requiring those works source code remain available freely under MPL 2.0.

[samrocketman]

Funny story. If I contribute to this code base, I am the copyright holder of the code I contributed and can therefore request Apple to take down ChatSecure-iOS from the app store. That threat is real if a contributor wants to be a stickler. That happened to VLC not because of the type of app or it's popularity but because of a contributor to VLC and the License the code held at the time. Rather someone from Nextel threw a stink (they contributed to VLC at one point in time).

[chrisballinger]

That's exactly why we require a CLA for pull requests. Relaxing the license would remove that requirement, although some would argue that CLAs are still helpful for proof of authorship. For example, Google requires a CLA even though their projects are Apache 2.0.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sam Gleske notifications@github.com wrote:

Funny story. If I contribute to this code base I am the copyright holder of the code I contributed and can therefore request Apple to take down ChatSecure-iOS from the app store. That threat is real if a contributor wants to be a stickler. That happened to VLC not because of the type of app or it's popularity. Rather someone from Nextel threw a stink (they contributed to VLC at one point in time).

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ChatSecure/ChatSecure-iOS/issues/195#issuecomment-228954269, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAfqHyfs2AtiAWyOSicAh96usOiGtTQ4ks5qQLU6gaJpZM4B1mhp .

[samrocketman]

Good to know.