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

NuShares Motions
#1

I’d like to get the discussion started and gain Shareholder input on the language for a standing motion. I’ve taken a first pass at trying to cover all of the bases, but I’m sure that with the Community’s review and suggestions, this can be improved.

BEGIN DRAFT MOTION
With the successful passage of this motion, the Nu Shareholders[1] (“Shareholders”) have instructed the Nu Development Team[2] (“Developers”) to make the Nu source code available to the general public. The updated license will allow free, permissive use of the source code in Nu-related and derivative projects.

The Nu source code (including the code that describes the underlying Nu network protocol, the daemons, the GUIs, and the associated support systems for testing, distribution, and deployment) will include a text file, COPYING, in the root directory of the project.

Copyright © {YEAR[3]} Nu Developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Existing copyrights held by outside persons or organizations for code integrated into, or adapted for use within Nu, will be retained within the source code.

Additionally, the Shareholders grant the Developers the ability to determine a location for the code repository (BitBucket or Github, etc.) where the source code will be available. The Developers will act in the best interests of Shareholders when selecting the person(s) granted permissions to review, approve, and merge proposed modifications to the source code.

Finally, the Shareholders grant the Developers discretion when determining which features, submitted to the project’s code repository from individual contributors by way of “pull requests,” are merged into the Nu source code. Members of the Nu Community at-large are all empowered to introduce motions to identify the “roadmap” that core development will follow.

Once this motion has been passed, the Developers will have thirty (30) days to inform Shareholders of the steps required to open the Nu source code to the public, and to take those steps. The final action required by the passage of this motion will be to release a new version of the Nu clients (daemon and GUI, for Windows, OS X, and Linux) that includes the updated software license. This release will be tagged “v1.0.0” within the version control system. After meeting the requirements, this motion’s purpose is complete, with no further action required.

[1] “Nu Shareholders” are persons with legitimate access to enough NSR to cast a vote for this motion by minting a valid Nu block.

[2] “Nu Development Team” are the person(s) ultimately responsible for software development of the Nu network, and who have unrestricted access to Nu source code when this motion passes.

[3] The date of the copyright listed in COPYING will match the year that this motion is passed, and will be back-dated to 2014 if needed. For example, Copyright (c) 2014 Nu Developers if the motion passes this year, or Copyright (c) 2014-2016 Nu Developers if the motion does not pass until 2016.
END DRAFT MOTION

History of the Nu Network (Feedback Please)
Exco.in has opened a market for trading BTC/NSR
#2

I moved 21 posts to a new topic: Shareholder discussion on adopting an open source license

#11

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?

#12

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.

2 Likes
Discussion on adopting an open source license
Discussion on adopting an open source license
#14

Thanks for the pointer. Interesting read.

#16

who will be holding the copyright? Is Nu Developers a valid legal entity?

#17

Very interesting question. Who does for Bitcoin? The Bitcoin Foundation?

#20

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:

http://unlicense.org/

#27

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
#28

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.

4 Likes
#29

+1
(peerbox uses GPL3 too)

#30

http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/7/23/licensing/

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3808648/why-does-microsoft-and-apple-ban-gplv3-and-when-would-i-fall-into-the-same-situ

#31

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.

#32

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.

#33

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.

#34

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
#35

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.

#36

Why do you like GPLv3 rather than MIT, or another type of license?

#37

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.

#38

@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