**Draft** Motion to Adopt An Open-Source License

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

@tomjoad what if we add a link to this discussion from https://nubits.com/about/source-code ? It will give some insight of motions, forums, and show our commitment

Great idea! I’ve added an additional line onto the page.

1 Like

Here it comes, a new source of pressure. Coinpayments.net, altcoin payment processor, requires open source for integration with their system.

Unlike others kinds of applications, they need to add a customized RPC to the client for integrating in their payment system.

I’m MrData from the dev team. The main reason we need the source is because we add custom RPC functions to our coins.

The coin source wouldn’t need to be publicly available.

the only way to do that is by modifying the source and compiling it.

Good point.

Is this the only thing hindering them?

yes, that, and 500 $ we need to pay upfront for the effort

Hm. As I mentioned before, they would enable a lot of merchants to adopt NuBits… but I don’t think their service is really necessary with our stable currency.

Floating this topic back up to the top of the message board. I think it would be beneficial for us to finalize the motion and begin voting so that the broader crypto community can see our future commitment to open-source.