LICENSING: Are you dead set on GPL3?

This is a wildly passionate discussion. I had to research to understand what everyone is talking about. I’ll add my view point, if that helps. :cake:

From my understanding, GPL (General Public License) means the original developer/author “wants” the source and any changes to remain open for future generations. I think @dirvine’s quote is pretty accurate.

Can anyone fork and close the code? Yes. The reality is… this can and does happen. But the intention of the author is very clear… keep it open.

Here are two points of view to consider.

Merchants in the digital world.
Merchants rely on exclusitivity to stay in business. Otherwise, someone will copy their secrets and sell it cheaper or give it away for free. In the digital world, where data is so easily duplicated, being exclusive is near impossible. If a merchant spends time and money to make a product/service, they need to make money or go broke. I understand why they want to close source their IP (Intellectual Property).

Consumers in the digital world.
I can’t tell you how many downloads installed malware and adware on my PC. It has become a digital nightmare for many who don’t know how to protect themselves. And now we are aware of legitimate companies collecting data, tracking, spying, and even manipulating our online browsing experience. Open source is one of the ways we take back control and freedom. Will there be close source apps on the SAFE Network? Probably. Will I personally use them? I don’t think so.

If merchants continue to close source their IP, and consumers continue to distrust anything closed source. Then merchants would eventually go out of business. Bitcoin has proven people don’t need to trust each other in the digital world, they only need to trust themselves by looking at the code.

I say, let them close source their IP. Just don’t complain to me if the SAFE Community doesn’t trust them. Even an honest business can be hijacked by a government authority and made to betray their clients.

6 Likes

So let me get this straight, maidsafe has worked on this project for 8 years, open sourced everything and has given it away for free. The only thing they require is that you do the same. But that’s not good enough for you, you want people to be able to close source the code which is against everything that maidsafe stands for. I will live in my “fantasy” world thanks where humanity can collaborate through improving or modifying any existing code.

6 Likes

Great conversation… I can see points from both sides and definitely value market forces for determining societal values however because our market is so distorted today, I think it’s beneficial to experiment with models that “force” it into a new direction. I would vote to stick with GPL for the time being with an open mind to switching to MIT, BSD, public domain, etc…
If anything, keeping Project Safe GPL gives the opportunity for individual developers who aren’t concerned first and foremost about maximizing profit to create valuable services which inherently earn safecoin.
Project Safe is about empowering the individual to take back the Internet, not propping up the existing infrastructure.

5 Likes

I don’t agree that a GPL web would have prevented this conversation from happening. In fact, maybe the web wouldn’t be in such a desperate need for a Project Safe evolution because Google selling your info, government backdoors, etc. wouldn’t be happening as easily.

Sure, a GPL web might not have some of the components it has today but there’s a lot of crap on the Internet today that would benefit from not existing at all. And honestly, I would argue that most of the crap is a result of the commercialized, corporatized uses of the technology. Additionally, maybe the problem of dependence on servers would have been recognized much earlier without commercial incentive for businesses to centralize control.

7 Likes

@gubatron this is a very interesting discussion which I’m catching up on as I’m away.

I’m not a licensing expert, though I’ve dealt with contracts so I’m capable of understanding if things are laid out clearly, but having just read this thread I do not understand why the license of SAFE infrastructure is an issue for OB.

Can you tell us what you want to do with the code? Obviously you are wanting to do something other than build an app to run on the infrastructure, but I have no idea what you have in mind, and no idea how facilitating that is of benefit to SAFE Network, MaidSafe Foundation, or this community.

Obviously MaidSafe Foundation or company could benefit from a commercial licensing deal, but only if it is non competitive with SAFE Network.

2 Likes

I just read over the whole conversation. Unless I’m reading this wrong, I get the impression a lot of people are glossing over what people are saying so they can get as quickly as possible to pushing their personal beliefs.

Here’s what I took away from reading this:
GPL3 licenses allow open use of code, but require that the software implementing said code stay open.
MIT (or other suggested licenses) allow anyone to use the code, open or closed.

Seems to me this is philosophically opposed to freedom, albeit in competition with openness.

@gubatron seems to be saying that his fear isn’t strictly OB including the code. It’s that if they use any of the Maidsafe implementation, then anyone using OB’s code is now held to the legal restrictions of Maidsafe’s code. Maidsafe is essentially becoming a poison pill.

He’s saying that GPL3 and their license are incompatible.

Putting aside all personal philosophy, I think I’m on @gubatron’s side. The purpose of the open source community is to cross pollinate and contribute to a greater good. If Team A is preventing Team B from progress, Team A is mostly likely the problem. It seems here, Maidsafe is unfortunately the resistance to progress.

Requiring openness under threat of law seems to go against the majority of philosophical beliefs in this forum.

3 Likes

I’m not sure I can follow what you mean @russell ; simply because if something is closed source it is only good for business by making people ignorant.

And MaidSafe is open source and uses a license that serializes open source, and this sure stops a profit firm from using the old models of making software for keeps.

Realize there are methods to generate profit with an open source code.

5 Likes

Is that because they swapped from GPL3 to MIT?

Dunno. Not sure what they did before now. Just that it seems OB says that they don’t want to limit who’s using their code, and Maidsafe is using a license that legally requires developers to comply with certain conditions.

Or am I reading this wrong?

Sure, but isn’t this through legal “coercion?” (as the kids love to say here)

Exactly.

I think the team believed that by opening up the tech, there would be some cross pollination…by others in the space. Didn’t happen, too much self interest.

I think OB should either get on board with the SAFE API or eat cake on this one.

I don’t think it would be too long before we get the same functionality as OB on SAFE anyhow. From what I’ve read SAFE has the capability for contracts above and beyond what the Ricardian contracts of OB can offer.

3 Likes

I’m a little surprised how venomous folks are being.

We want a laissez faire community, but then attack the guy who comes in looking to expand on decentralization? That’s really too bad. We’re all on the same team. It’s not gonna devalue your safecoins, don’t worry.

6 Likes

There’s some passionate back and forth, but I’m not sure who is being attacked here, if anyone.

Just some nastiness. Lotta unfortunate passive-aggression.

EDIT: But yeah, not nearly as much as I initially thought.

2 Likes

This isn’t entirely true. If I’m a shoe maker does that mean I’m the only shoe maker in the world? No. Does it mean no one but me makes my kind of shoes? No. To stay in business I need to be the best outlet of shoes and have an original and comfortable design of footwear FOR MY AREA, that is the clients I serve. Is Ubuntu the only kind of Linux out there? No. Does it prevent there from being other flavors of linux distros out there, even other distros based on Ubuntu? No. Does it stop people from learning about the code. No. Then how is it one of the biggest names in the Linux community? Because it serves it’s community, because it keeps innovating, it stays original and it sells service rather than product. I don’t believe for a minute you have to restrict people’s freedoms or create artificial scarcity in order to succeed at business. And if you do then your business model sucks and needs to adapt. Demanding people not learn from what you create, share it, modify it and create new products from it, is just an excuse for you as the creator to be lazy and not innovate and create better stuff.

2 Likes

If Team A is preventing Team B from progress on closed source (ie. unprogressive) services by requiring openness I see that as a good thing. Progress for the community and “greater good” as you put it looks different than progress for a corporation like Microsoft.

2 Likes

What I don’t understand is why everyone talks about this like it’s an absolute choice. If Maidsafe generally wants to do GPL they can still issue other licenses on terms that deal with these issues in appropriate use cases

2 Likes

Would you mind elaborating?

I’m so watching this movie right now. The open source subject is so relevant to what we are talking about.

2 Likes

Well this was talked through above to some extent, but the GPL is not an absolute license. If people claim that license i.e. they take the code then that license governs their behavior.

But OB or anybody else can go to Maidsafe and say we need the ability to offer closed source potential on our platform, for XYZ reasons and we will offer you ABC as a quid pro quo (money, attribution, marketing, code use, etc.) Then maidsafe can issue them another license. OB can use this license for their platform, and anything derived from this platform relies on this license not the GPL.

And this means that the “objectionable” GPL provisions would not affect the OB platform.

2 Likes

His freedom from freedom jive works in a metaphysical Krishnamurti sense but not in a political economy sense. Seems dishonest like an outright liar’s agenda. Probably afraid of MaidSAFE.