Replies: 9 comments 43 replies
-
|
Thanks for weighing in and for opening the discussion @Erethon! This is something I've been considering and thinking about for quite some time. I am aware of the potential classification as "non-free", and it's not a consideration I have taken lightly. As you can imagine, I have plenty to say on this subject, but writing that all down will have to wait for just a bit, since it'll probably end up being quite a wall of text. On a short note, the goal of the new license is encourage real freedom, in a way that is not naive. To do that, I don't believe it's enough provide tools that can be used freely. It is also necessary to discourage actions that actively limit the freedom of people. As an example of this, creating purposefully harmful systems is severely limiting to the actual freedom of real people. Reticulum can be used for an immense array of helpful, productive and freedom-enhancing purposes, but it can also potentially be used very effectively, in very destructive systems. I believe very strongly that anyone creating technological tools need to account for that reality, as best as possible at least, and those two sentences added to the license is informed by such awareness. It also reflects, to some degree, what my hope is for how Reticulum will be used.
Yes, both the MIT license itself allows this, and also the contribution clause in the Contribution Guidelines, so technically it's not a problem. I'm sure there's a risk of it being another kind of problem for some, though, but we'll see. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for the heads up... so does the AI clause mean that using things like google copilot and other AI assistants is not allowed while working on the Reticulum code base? I would think that it analyzing the code could also lead to use for model training? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@markqvist Making your own license that isn't even GPL compatible breaks things in so many ways, and may put you on the hook legally later for your use of now-incompatible libraries in your projects. This also does nothing to prevent AI generated contributions, and it doesn't grant you any extra rights against AI companies who don't include your copyright notice - you've always had the ability to sue them based on that alone. And one other important thing to note: And it's not like people using it to harm other people care about your license - it only harms regular users who just want compatible software. If you want to move to a more restrictive license, please at least consider something like AGPLv3 or at least Apache 2.0 instead. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think this makes a project idea of mine impossible, at least with any version of Reticulum after the license change. Reticulum seemed like it might be an interesting option as a netlayer for Spritely Goblins. With the two being written in different languages there would of course practically be FFI issues to work out, but conceptually it seemed like a very good fit. For example, an OCapN designator seems to map onto a Reticulum single destination very well. However, the current implementation of Goblins, though Apache v2-licensed itself, makes use of GPLv3 libraries, and thus the combined work is effectively licensed under the GPLv3. This is a problem when it comes to integrating Reticulum into the system, though, because the GPL states:
Prior to the license change, this would have been no big deal, because the MIT license is GPL-compatible; the combined work could have still been distributed under the GPLv3. After the license change, however, this is no longer the case. The additional terms in the Reticulum license are not found in the GPL, and thus I would be violating the Reticulum license if I were to distribute the combined work including Reticulum under the terms of the GPL. Also, I see you briefly mentioned above that there isn't a compatibility issue between NomadNet (as a GPL-licensed work) and Reticulum under the new license. I don't believe that's true, for the reasons I've just mentioned. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
as someone who's worked on packaging reticulum for Debian (and we got pretty close! see #781), I can already say the license change is a deal breaker, and will likely not pass "debian-legal", which is the litmus test of "can we ship this in Debian". The first two additional clauses, in particular, go contrary to the "freedom of use for any purpose" standard for free software. It is not my place to question your decision, as an upstream, to relicense your work. You are of course free to pick whatever direction you choose. But you should consider those facts:
Those are my two cents. I understand this is a complex topic, and you might not want Reticulum used for Evil. That's a legitimate concern, and one dear to my heart as well. But I do not consider software licenses to be the right vector for this. Evil people will use Reticulum for Evil, regardless of the license you put on it, because Evil people don't give a damn about respecting agreements like this anyways. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Seeing the community's reaction to the license, there appears to be an almost complete misunderstanding of it. Frequently Asked Questions
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't have any more time to spend on returning to repeat the same things in a seemingly infinite recursion loop of ideological misalignment, and this thread is already a mile long. If anyone else wants to discuss this, please start a new thread. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I opened a separate discussion just about the Sideband license in here: #1041 . Sadly i did not get a answer why Sideband got relicensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 on Oct 25, 2022. Instead the discussion was closed and locked. Such thing never happened before in this project: https://github.com/markqvist/Reticulum/discussions?discussions_q=is%3Alocked+is%3Aclosed In the answer i got told to explain more in detail what i was talking about. But then it got locked that does not make it possible to explain more in detail what i was talking about. So the only other logical place to answer the questions i got asked there is in this discussion here. My idea was to split apart the discussion about the Reticulum License https://github.com/markqvist/Reticulum/blob/master/LICENSE#L1 away from the Sideband project because its license is different. I got asked why i had the idea the license of Sideband could have been changed because of liamcottle. Here is a short answer: Changing the Sideband license from a Copyleft license to a still copyleft license but with the addition to forbid earning money with it (not commercial) should obviously prevent selling the Sideband binary file. I understand the idea behind not willing someone selling the software. I also liked the NC idea when i have start learning about all at licenses some time ago. It took me some time to understand that NC is bad. You are more hurting the project with such a license then protecting people of getting ripped off. I got asked my @markqvist this:
Because i got told i would make up that end users and other contrubuters are not happy with the Sideband license, i try to explain as compact as possible. Providing Sideband for Android in F-Droid have also been blocked because of the License: Also Debian wont seem to be adding it to make a typical end user installation possible because of the license. Because what i planned to achieve with my time i spending into writing this here is something positive and productive instead of something negative and destructive, let me name the best solution here i can think of. The license should be changed to AGPLv3 in combination with the license structure OsmAnd https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd have. What their OsmAnd BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands - KvK 62066714, BTW 854627704B01) is doing, should be done at the Reticulum project by non-profits like https://sfconservancy.org/ , https://www.spi-inc.org/ and so on. It is the opposite way around how to achieve that people do not have to pay for the Sideband software. The project itself should have the rights to the binary while the code is open. OsmAnd is earning money by selling a binary in closed source app stores and at the same time a binary with same free and open functionality is available at no cost for everyone to download precompiled from https://f-droid.org/packages/net.osmand.plus/ I can not imagine @markqvist writing endless legal letters in court against companies who have sold the Sideband binary. It would also be such a waste of time of developer hours. Instead give this work away to non-profit projects that do exactly this day to day. https://archive.fosdem.org/2021/schedule/event/agplcompliance/ Maybe combine those two things together: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Just noticed the license change, so I'll share some thoughts.
I think technically this is fine, since MIT allows relicensing without having to ask any contributors about it.
Personally, I don't care so much about licenses (I have opinions on them ;)), but I agree with the spirit of the new license and I would love to see more projects do this! I will however note that unfortunately distros will most likely categorize RNS as a "non-free" software now because the license is not OSI approved (or not in a per distro list (Debian example)) and thus packaging might become a bit harder. This relates to #781 and I believe that NixOS will stop shipping pre-built binaries most likely.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions