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+

[ghost]

GPLv3-only and Lax

[vitorio]

GPLv3 and Lax

[skwerlman]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[mkg20001]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[ghost]

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

[ghost]

@rwv @sinkuu @zwgshr

[kseistrup]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[camponez]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[ysc3839]

GPLv3+

[d14na]

GPLv3+ and Lax

[ghost]

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

[ghost]

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.

[ghost]

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

[ghost]

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

[purplesyringa]

GPLv3 and Lax

[purplesyringa]

@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

[purplesyringa]

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

[purplesyringa]

@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

[purplesyringa]

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

[martijndeb]

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.