I moved 21 posts to a new topic: Shareholder discussion on adopting an open source license
Thanks Ben. Could you describe the difference, if any, between this copyright notice and that of the closest major open source license such as GPL ?
Is it possible to release part of the client so that only some functions of nu can be copied, and contributors can still make meaningful contribution to the released part?
The type of license here is the same permissive model that both Bitcoin and Peercoin use. I do not believe that it follows the “standard” MIT disclosure exactly, but it is drafted in the spirit of a “copy left” license.
I do not see the benefit fo releasing only a portion of the source, vs. all of the source. There are technical challenges that we’d be artificially burdening ourselves with if we decided to go that way. The important parts of Nu are the Shareholders, the extended Community, and the multi-disciplinary skills and product vision of the development team. Those cannot easily be recreated.
Thanks for the pointer. Interesting read.
who will be holding the copyright? Is Nu Developers a valid legal entity?
Very interesting question. Who does for Bitcoin? The Bitcoin Foundation?
You do not need to be a legal entity to claim copyright over work you have produced.
Here’s an alternative that ultimately provides what I had in mind:
Let’s refocus this conversation away from the topic of “is this a good idea” and back to the discussion around the contents of the motion itself. I’d like to formally introduce the motion within the next two days, so to do that I need to know for sure if there are parts that need to be updated before I hash the final text.
I love this idea. I for one would be a strong proponent of releasing all of the source code under version 3 of GNU’s GPL. This would give us a distinction from all of the MIT-licensed coins. We would start a whole new branch of coins licensed under the GPL, and in doing so, we may find favorable positioning within Linux distributions, which are also licensed under the GPL.
(peerbox uses GPL3 too)
Discussion on whether we should or should not open source the software has been moved to this topic so discussion of the language and license of this motion can continue unobstructed.
30 days may not be enough. The devs will have a lot of other tasks on their hand. Think how many delays it takes for a version to roll out. 90 days might cut it.
I was thinking 60 days, but 90 is probably better. It doesn’t mean we have to wait that long, but it gives us the flexibility if we need it. This is a good idea.
We have been able to push out hot fixes in 24 hours when required. Cutting and compiling an “open” version of the software is straight forward.
I do not expect that the open source version is different from the last closed release; just a version number update.
Let’s not allow this to drag on for up to three months after the shareholders have cast their votes in favor of it.
Would very much like to see publication of the source code under GPL3 at the time that author(s) feel the risk of clone-coins is remote enough.
Why do you like GPLv3 rather than MIT, or another type of license?
Licensing is not my expertise. As a programmer I know:
The Free Software Foundation ( https://www.fsf.org/ )and the GPLv3 exist to preserve rights for the author(s) of software. In case GPL3 is becoming restrictive for a project’s goals, the author(s) are free to re-license their work under a more permissive license or add exceptions as amendments to the license.
Projects like: http://www.wtfpl.net/ make light of the issue.
However, I’m sure the Author(s) take their own work seriously as they must know they are leading the field of crypto-currencies. I hope they will consider the option to continue the tradition of Free Software leading the way and choose a license that will protect their work and vision.
Great idea! I’ve added an additional line onto the page.