Open Source License
Starting a discussion on which open source license to use. Some of the considerations are:
- Free.
- Should be compatible (both ways) with other open source licenses. We must be able to integrate other source code and the reverse.
- Commercial use must be permitted.
Changes/forks must be published. Nothing more fun than if a big company steals source and does not contribute back.Edit: Backtracking this statement.- Does NOT grant trademark rights.
Comments
-
MIT almost fits this bill except for the "Changes/forks must be published" clause (I am very much a fan of keeping everything open, even forks š). Sounds like a job for GPLv3 or similar
-
Agreed
-
For the core package we'll go with MIT. I read a bit and GPL actually seems quite scary and stupid. We do want companies and in general anyone to use the core package to develop clients/services on top of Peernet. If companies do not contribute back, that will be OK too. Commercial participants in Peernet = raising overall value of the network and usefulness.
-
For the Browser, we will use a different open source license that allows anyone to make modifications/fork, but actually requires to open source any changes. The reason is because the browser is user facing and attractive for bad actors to abuse (including embedding malicious code and redistributing it).
-
The core is now licensed under the MIT License.
Howdy, Stranger!