Relicencing the core to LGPLv3 instead of GPLv3.

[irungentoo]

Does everyone agree?

[Proplex]

Whatever pleases the stallman more.

[ghost]

Free software is free software; I don't care what Stallman says. Ensuring the privacy of possibly hundreds of millions of people is more important than the license. To do this we should have a license that ensures maximum marketshare.

On Friday, July 19, 2013 at 21:47, NemDiggers wrote:

Whatever pleases the stallman more.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21287058).

[nurupo]

Agree.

[mckenney5]

Looks good to me but what about Mozilla? On Jul 19, 2013 8:38 PM, "irungentoo" notifications@github.com wrote:

Does everyone agree?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58 .

[ghost]

I'm unfamiliar with the exact language that Mozilla uses but I for one have no issue with protecting artistic portions like icon and name of a software project. I have no use for ideology for its own sake and instead am only concerned with the privacy of all end users. If Tox is something that only FSF geeks use I believe that we've failed; those guys already know how to protect their identities online or have become public figures now. As long as the code is both auditable and forkable it's free software; everything else is nonsense for political busybodies.

On Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 0:12, Adam McKenney (AMM) wrote:

Looks good to me but what about Mozilla?
On Jul 19, 2013 8:38 PM, "irungentoo" notifications@github.com wrote:

Does everyone agree?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58
.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21288424).

[Latrasis]

I don't see the reasons for this, can someone elaborate?

[ghost]

For migrating from GPL? Version 3 of the license prevents software inclusion in many mobile app stores.

On Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 3:07, Zuruneko wrote:

I don't see the reasons for this, can someone elaborate?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21290033).

[Captainhat]

I am in favor of LGPLv3

[TrevorDorl]

I don't see why we're gonna do that, the FSF will complain about it if we try to get their endorsement, while maybe not so much with a duplex license(for the purpose of getting it in the app store), but even then, what's the point? Can we even just take this C code and use it on an iDevice?

All I can see LGPL doing for this software is creating non-free user interfaces for it, which just doesn't make sense Edit: and frankly I can see no good coming from non-free interfaces to Tox, that's kind of a scary idea actually since the general populace knows no better

Edit: and frankly I think non-free interfaces to Tox is kind of a frightening idea, just a bad idea in general

[volb]

What about Apache 2?

[TrevorDorl]

I'm having trouble understanding the Apache 2 license, does it force distribution of the source? If so it doesn't even mention linking, so seems to accomplish the same as the LGPL in this case

[volb]

Reposting from the current thread:

We should use a license that prevents forks that mess up the system (like how Yahoo Messenger and AIM were able to bastardize XMPP) but still allows proprietary clients to use the protocol and thus expand the marketshare and ecosystem. What license best accomplishes this?

http://choosealicense.com/

[volb]

If IRC and XMPP were not as libertarian as they are, we would have significantly fewer clients and users. Most (edit: POPULAR) IRC/XMPP clients are free software anyway.

[volb]

Also, another thing in support of a permissive license. In 2001, Stallman tried to get ogg marketshare to beat MP3 and he himself said a permissive license should be used to expand its popularity.

edit: source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2120937

[ollieh]

Can kind of understand why you might want LGPL, but not permissive licenses. The core must be free as in freedom. Really, I'd rather it stay GPL as I don't see the point of non-free GUIs, and non-free GUIs could intercept the communication before it's encrypted / after it's decrypted. What's the deal with the app store?

[ghost]

The issue with GPL is shown perfectly here https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/ - it's not the version.

On Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 18:20, ollieh wrote:

Can kind of understand why you might want LGPL, but not permissive licenses. The core must be free as in freedom. Really, I'd rather it stay GPL as I don't see the point of non-free GUIs, and non-free GUIs could intercept the communication before it's encrypted / after it's decrypted. What's the deal with the app store?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21302218).

[Latrasis]

One thing i don't understand however, is that since VLC is based on GPL v3 why has it just recently been accepted to the app store?

[AnthonySuper]

I am in favor of this license change.

Hell, to make this easier, any contributions I have made are now licensed under whatever the other members of the project (that means the other people who have made commits) decide.

Hopefully that keeps the lawyers at bay.

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Zuruneko notifications@github.com wrote:

One thing i don't understand however, is that since VLC is based on GPL v3 why has it just recently been accepted to the app store?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21306058 .

[stal888]

i'm good for lgpl

[Zlacki]

I'd like a permissive license such as ISC but, LGPL is less harmful than GPL any day, and would slightly please the BSD crowds, such as myself.

[m0jo]

Im ok with LGPL

[mckenney5]

Before everyone comes to a decision on something as big as a license change, first we must figure out why not GPL and generate possible solutions to our problem.

The issues I see are: Putting this program in an app store (to increase user base) Keeping the rights to icons and artwork (to keep like a brand name)

Any more?

[volb]

Yes, someone hijacking the protocol for a proprietary network like what some companies did with XMPP. On Jul 21, 2013 10:43 AM, "Adam McKenney (AMM)" notifications@github.com wrote:

Before everyone comes to a decision on something as big as a license change, first we must figure out why not GPL and generate possible solutions to our problem.

The issues I see are: Putting this program in an app store (to increase user base) Keeping the rights to icons and artwork (to keep like a brand name)

Any more?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21313768 .

[Proplex]

I just want to mention that I support the change.

[ollieh]

LGPL isn't compatible with the apple appstore apparently anyway (the issue isn't linking), and no licenses that require providing the source code are compatible with the Windows phone store. GPLv2 is almost compatible with the apple appstore, so I think we should talk to those lawyers that help free software for free that someone mentioned, I think you can find them somewhere on the FSF page? Until then, there's no point in switching from GPL.

[ghost]

Wouldn't AGPL be more appropriate, considering this is meant to be run over a network?

[OdeliusJimmie]

Argh. Flippin' appstore.

I am find it reasonable to change the license but until we have set upon what license to use I cannot say yay nor nay.

[Proplex]

For me, I feel that the development of a brand name is the most important. Our artwork/design needs to remain ours.

Utilizing the app store's popularity is definitely a very big advantage for us, which is why I recommend the change.

Also, we don't need to care much about Windows Phone; we want to target the masses. The masses aren't using WP.

[ghost]

NemDiggers,

Correct me if I'm wrong but does the Mozilla license not provide a liberal license while protecting brand recognition?

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 8:40, NemDiggers wrote:

For me, I feel that the development of a brand name is the most important. Our artwork/design needs to remain ours. Utilizing the app store's popularity is definitely a very big advantage for us, which is why I recommend the change. Also, we don't need to care much about Windows Phone; we want to target the masses. The masses aren't using WP.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21485106).

[ghost]

Also, you're right. I live in a fairly major city and have yet to see a WP7/8 device outside of a store. To hell with Microsoft, I guarantee that even Firefox OS will have a greater marketshare soon.

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 8:40, NemDiggers wrote:

For me, I feel that the development of a brand name is the most important. Our artwork/design needs to remain ours. Utilizing the app store's popularity is definitely a very big advantage for us, which is why I recommend the change. Also, we don't need to care much about Windows Phone; we want to target the masses. The masses aren't using WP.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21485106).

[volb]

To summarize:

1. We need to keep the brand.
2. We DO NOT WANT THE LIBRARY TO BE HIJACKED for an isolated network.
3. We want developers to have the choice to make proprietary clients if they wish while not taking the core to its own network.
4. No patent BS.
5. Attribution of the Tox team?

[ghost]

So LGPL is verboten by Apple as well...

Does a license like MIT ensure sufficient protection against less than ethical corporate elements?

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 17:48, m3hr wrote:

To summarize:

1. We need to keep the brand.
2. We DO NOT WANT THE LIBRARY TO BE HIJACKED for an isolated network.
3. We want developers to have the choice to make proprietary clients if they wish while not taking the core to its own network.
4. No patent BS.
5. Attribution of the Tox team?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21522253).

[volb]

The thing is, it's very hard to enforce "Do everything you want with this code, except use it in your own network." That's technically against the notion of free software, I would think.

[ghost]

@m3hr

1. We need to keep the brand.

That's okay. Copyright and trademark law are pretty much entirely separate.

1. We DO NOT WANT THE LIBRARY TO BE HIJACKED for an isolated network.

There's nothing wrong with people modifying and using something privately. It's if they distribute it publically that it could be an issue. I think what we really want to avoid is having incompatible clients.

1. We want developers to have the choice to make proprietary clients if they wish while not taking the core to its own network.

Would it not be better just to say "If you want to make a proprietary client, feel free to do so. You can use the same protocol as we do. But you can't use our code to do it." Or would that not work?

1. No patent BS.
2. Attribution of the Tox team?

Definitely.

[volb]

After I wrote that last, I realized Tox isn't a group based network (IRC), but a contact list network (XMPP), it's fine to have private networks.

[Captainhat]

Couldn't we keep the main project that will be used on platforms that don't have issues with FOSS (PC, Android, and so on), and just reimplement it for the iOS port under a more permissive license like Apache-2.0?

[ollieh]

I think we should talk to whatever free lawyers were on the FSF page, and get an exception put in for app stores that won't fuck us up. Releasing it both as GPL and a permissive license means people can use the permissively licensed code, and it's going to be the same code for all platforms, so that isn't an option. Releasing on the app store is a long way off though. Another solution, which would make things less secure for iOS / windows users, is to have the tox client be some web service they connect to, and the iOS client just connects to that. The trouble is it centralizes it for them, so you'd have to trust the server it connects to, but that way the GPL tox stuff is on a server and not an app store, then we can make a permissively licensed client. I think the first option is better though, speaking to some lawyers.

[ghost]

The need shouldn't arise.

[hellekin]

If you didn't read it already, please consider Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library.

In the case of Tox, what you call a permissive license is the right for proprietary software vendors to take over your market by distributing proprietary software that will use your library.

You need to respond to a single question: Why do you want to replace Skype?

You have to consider whether you want your users to break free from surveillance, in which case you're constrained to avoid proprietary platforms, even if that means iPhone users. After all, there's no business doing free software with Apple, and that only encourages people to use devices that are compromised by design. On the other hand, you can provide a competitive advantage to devices compatible with free software--hence providing demonstrable security--so that they would come with a genuinely privacy-friendly solution.

I would expect that you're willing to make a free software replacement for Skype for a reason, and that reason must determine the choice of license.

[ghost]

Nonfree operating systems are already bugged. If an NT user invokes the ire of the Feds they're have software like magic lantern installed. Really, a nonfree interface is the least of their concerns.

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 at 10:32, hellekin wrote:

If you didn't read it already, please consider Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library (https://gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html). In the case of Tox, what you call a permissive license is the right for proprietary software vendors to take over your market by distributing proprietary software that will use your library. You need to respond to a single question: Why do you want to replace Skype? Proprietary software vendors may as well add a layer to monitor your contact list, your clicks, your keyboard input, grab your camera stream before the library even kicks in. It could be contrived and inefficient, but that would allow them to simply disregard the effort you're trying to accomplish by making a free software replacement for Skype, while getting advantage of your strategic position. It would allow them to compromise the privacy of free software users by way of proprietary software users communicating with them. You have to consider whether you want your users to break free from surveillance, in which case you're constrained to avoid proprietary platforms, even if that means iPhone users. After all, there's no business doing free software with Apple, and that only encourages people to use devices that are compromised by design. On the other hand, you can provide a competitive advantage to devices compatible with free software--hence providing demonstrable security--so that they would come with a genuinely privacy-friendly solution. I would expect that you're willing to make a free software replacement for Skype for a reason, and that reason must determine the choice of license.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21667242).

[hellekin]

Sorry @TheAustinHowell, I sent a draft by mistake, with a paragraph that I removed in the final take, and you exactly replied on that point. I removed it for that very reason, that it's details and the real question is the goal, hence Why do you want to replace Skype?

[ghost]

Do you realize that there's quite a bit of evidence that Microsoft only purchased Skype because the US Federal government wanted it under the control of a loyal corporation.

Skype is backdoored from the protocol up and the world is in dire need of a trustworthy alternative. If ensuring marketshare means a couple people install interfaces of questionable legitimacy that's an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice.

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 at 10:51, hellekin wrote:

Sorry @TheAustinHowell (https://github.com/TheAustinHowell), I sent a draft by mistake, with a paragraph that I removed in the final take, and you exactly replied on that point. I removed it for that very reason, that it's details and the real question is the goal, hence Why do you want to replace Skype?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21667513).

[hellekin]

@sometwo your point 1) is wrong. Nobody uses anything before it exists. When it does, that's another story. GPL is not incompatible with non-free OS. You can use GPL software on non-free OS. What you cannot do, is making non-free software from GPL software. If Apple decided that they do not want free software on their proprietary platforms, does that means free software developers must comply to their rule? I don't think so.

Point 2) does not require that you go the LGPL way. Only if you want to appear on the Apple App Store. Which is IMO a different question than whether you want to provide an alternative to Skype.

[edited for typo]

[ghost]

I strongly disagree with your stance on point 2. Unfortunately, mobile devices are beginning to take priority over PC's and I for one believe that phones and tablets shouldn't be excluded from software that aides in privacy so long as we have a say in the matter. I suspect that many people will be less likely to adopt a piece of software that does 't have some kind of port for their device of choice.

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 at 12:03, hellekin wrote:

@sometwo (https://github.com/sometwo) your point 1) is wrong. Nobody uses anything before it exists. When it does, that's another story. GPL is not incompatible with non-free OS. You can use GPL software on non-free OS. What you cannot do, is making non-free software from GPL software. If Apple decided that they do not want non-free software on their proprietary platforms, does that means free software developers must comply to their rule? I don't think so. Point 2) does not require that you go the LGPL way. Only if you want to appear on the Apple App Store. Which is IMO a different question than whether you want to provide an alternative to Skype.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21668725).

[ghost]

I was not aware that a duel license was possible.

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 at 12:07, nfkd wrote:

So, the only problem is the Apple App Store? Why not release Tox under GPLv3+ and, in case it's later decide to release on the app store, dual-license it? I am not really knowledgeable on licensing, so excuse any silliness.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21668809).

[hellekin]

GPLV3+ and Apache2 would cover the best of both worlds, as proprietary software vendors could use it in their production, but could not claim any patents over whatever they do with it, nor use patented technologies (which would obviously give them an advantage over free software, such as using proprietary codecs, etc.)

I'm not an expert in licensing, so that could be brought to licensing@fsf.org if you like. Another option would be to dual-license with the X11 license (AKA MIT). In any case I don't think LGPL and GPL are compatible. Best to ask for expert counsel if you choose to dual-license it.

[ghost]

@hellekin, that sounds like a reasonable solution. Bear in mind that it would not prevent them from selling Tox+their new interface. That's a phenomenon I wish had disappeared upon the invention of high speed Internet but there's nothing we can do about it.

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 at 12:40, hellekin wrote:

GPLV3+ and Apache2 would cover the best of both worlds, as proprietary software vendors could use it in their production, but could not claim any patents over whatever they do with it, nor use patented technologies (which would obviously give them an advantage over free software, such as using proprietary codecs, etc.) I'm not an expert in licensing, so that could be brought to licensing@fsf.org (mailto:licensing@fsf.org) if you like. Another option would be to dual-license with the X11 license (AKA MIT). In any case I don't think LGPL and GPL are compatible. Best to ask for expert counsel if you choose to dual-license it.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/issues/58#issuecomment-21669339).

[markwinter]

This article says dual-licensing is the way forward, https://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/solving-apple-app-store-incompatibility-gpl. It mentions several projects which are successful with this method, including Microsoft, Perl and MySQL.

It also mentioned Perl used the Artistic License 2.0 which is GPL compatible http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0. Looking at this license, it looks like it could be a good choice. Though I'm not sure how this differs to MIT or Apache2

[rodneyrod]

Finally got on here. Firstly, I have to say that what you guys are doing is great, but perhaps dual licensing is not the answer. All contributions would have to be submitted under both licenses, and if they're not, the developer would have to be contacted and their permission obtained to apply the applicable license files. Secondly, if you were to go with what the article Astonex posted, all developments in a non-GPL compatible environment would be limited to the iOS App Store. If you wanted to expand into other markets such as the Windows Marketplace, you would have to obtain permission from all the developers who have contributed code up until that point to add a further license to the project.

A far simpler solution would be to use a copyleft license which is compatible with these environments. Two such licenses are the Mozilla Public License 2.0, which stipulates that 'All distribution of Covered Software in Source Code Form, including any Modifications that You create or to which You contribute, must be under the terms of this License.' which is almost identical to GPL copyleft. The only time a 'greater work' using this code can be distributed under a different license is when those licenses are 'the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0, the GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1, the GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3.0, or any later versions of those licenses.' The full license is here for your reading leisure: https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

There is also the Copyleft-Next license, which is mostly similar except that it includes an additional proprietary M.A.D. clause which states 'If I offer to license, for a fee, a Covered Work under terms other than a license that is OSI-Approved or FSF-Free as of the release date of this License or a numbered version of copyleft-next released by the Copyleft-Next Project, then the license I grant You under section 1 is no longer subject to the conditions in sections 2 through 5. (these sections deal with permission to distribute).' https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/blob/master/Releases/copyleft-next-0.3.0 However, the distribution under Copyleft-Next may not be compatible with the App Store and similar markets, discussed here: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-November/000277.html As such, if you were to use C-N, please contact the developer to clarify the licenses position on this.

[untitaker]

Please just use BSD or MIT. The argument of "companies won't contribute back" is also applying to LGPL anyway.