Change the license

[GrimPixel]

Creative Commons licenses are not for programs. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1717/why-is-cc-by-sa-discouraged-for-code

[markqvist]

I am perfectly well aware of such considerations. If you think I simply smacked on a random license on my software without any consideration or thought, I can reassure you that is not the case.

A shallow statement like "X is not for Y", and a link to a SE questions is not really useful, and all I can do is close this "issue".

If you want to discuss or propose something, make your own statements and arguments on why you think something should be changed, and how you think it would improve things.

Decrees by proxy of a hyperlink is not how we do things here.

[EternityForest]

The original issue seems to be fairly useless and shallow, but I think the point does stand on its own, enough to be worth discussion.

Is this explicitly intended to not be usable for businesses of any size to communicate, and to not ever be combined with GPL licensed software?

I don't know the original context so perhaps there are very good reasons I'm not aware of, but it seems like it creates an obstacle to adoption, as there are large advantages to choosing only a few tools that can be used for anything.

It also makes sharing resources with the wider FOSS community harder, as everything is basically universally GPL or MIT or something similar.

[markqvist]

First, to clear up any confusion:

• Reticulum, the protocol, is in the public domain.
• The Python reference implementation, Reticulum Network Stack is MIT licensed.
• The LXMF protocol is MIT licensed, as is the reference implementation I have released.
• Other LXMF clients than Sideband exist under GPL and MIT license.
• The Sideband application specifically is currently licensed CC-BY-NC-SA-V4, with an additional clause on the compiled binaries that I provide.

From the License section of the repo / Sideband page:

Permission is hereby granted to use Sideband in binary form, for any and all purposes, and to freely distribute binary copies of the program, so long as no payment or compensation is charged or received for such distribution or use.

Sideband is one client application built on Reticulum and LXMF, that I wrote with pretty specific goals and usecases in mind. It's freely usable by every person on the entire planet, and the licensing terms specifically seeks to remove any barriers to access, by disallowing anything but free and gratis redistribution.

I really cannot see how there are any obstacles to adoption in this context.

Secondly, to elaborate on more specific situations:

Can you use Sideband within an organisation or business? Sure, you just have to use the compiled binaries that I provide, which will automatically make any users aware that they have access to the source code and further updates to the system, and most importantly this: That they - the actual users - own the system and application, not the corporation / business / organisation that may want to appear as if they are "providing" it to them. They are also made aware of the technology stack that makes this possible, and where it came from, so that they understand they have agency and co-ownership.

As such, one of the few things that is not permitted within these licensing terms are for some business to download the source code, rebrand the program, and resell it as their own innovation, either internally or externally. Doing that would fall within "commercial use", which the CC license forbids.

Therefore, if you want to do something like that, you a very welcome to negotiate licensing terms with me on the specific basis of whatever it is you want to do :) Or just write your own LXMF client from scratch that suits your needs.

I'm certain that most people here can appreciate why I set up the licensing this way.

[msglm]

I would have liked to package this program for GNU Guix, but the freedom restricting license prevents this. Please reconsider the license so more users may make use of and use your application.