by 0x598f8af1565003ae7456dac280a18ee826df7a2c (pablo)
on the Platform category, right now there is a requirement to check in order to submit a proposal.
“I agree to work and publish the source code and its derivatives produced for this grant under an Apache 2.0 license”
I propose to change it to also allow GNU License:
“I agree to work and publish the source code and its derivatives produced for this grant under an Apache 2.0 license or AGPL-3.0”
Hi Pablo!
I don’t vote on proposals if I don’t know what they mean, and I’m not a technical person… can you please explain what the impact of this difference is? I totally trust that it’s the right thing for the platform because it’s coming from you, I just need a few more details. Thank you! 
Hi sure, it’s not technical but legal, on what Im neither an expert, I were explaining in discord also, I copy/paste:
You can use packages with both licenses in the same project. but AGPL-3 , enforces any project using it to be also AGPL-3.
Imagine you make an open-source tool under Apache 2, Microsoft can take it, modify it, and sell as own non open-source private product, they just need to notice the use of your tool.
with AGPL-3, Microsoft would be enforced to keep the same license and be open-source with any modification of it, or any product using it as a dependency.
with AGPL-3, if someone forks it, and make modifications, it’s mandatory that the product with modifications is open-source also with same license, cannot be private.
Unless you are the author; you dont need any license if you are already the author I think.
Blender, Wordpress, Linux, VLC, Telegram, etc. are GNU GPL
So, the proposal is not to force to use this license but to allow it as other option besides Apache 2 for platform grants. Mostly for people that wants everything to be open-source.
You can check also:
Thanks for the lesson 
I am ok with this… Unless there are any objections?
Vote: YES
I’m a FOSS (Free Open Source Software) maxi. Thank you for making this proposal that will offer choice to developers. It could encourage more people to come develop in the DCL space and make its tool set more widely used.
Voting Yes, its a very simple change and will benefit the community
Thank you Pablo! I’m going to pretend like I understand this now… but if AJ with his background thinks it is a good idea, I think it’s a good idea 
I’m 100% for this; thanks @pablo!
AGPL3 is too restrictive.
Being forced to reuse the same license in basically anything that use (even a small part of) your code is not great IMO.
I love opensource, but people should be free to use your code as they please.
For example, if the Worlds server was under AGPL-3, AtlasCorp would have to open-source their custom server (so they might not offer it as a service instead).
I think adding more licenses to this list would be good, but AGPL is not one of them.
MIT and Public domain should definitely be added, we should also add some license for non-code content.
AGPL-3 doesn’t prohibits doing commercial use, although yes, they would have needed to open-source, but still doing bussiness is ok. Anyway this proposal is just to add the option, not to force to use it, right now any platform contribution is forced to use Apache 2, which can limit the desire of some contributors
Allow also GNU License for platform parallel contributions
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
I didn’t catch this proposal in time to vote on it, but just wanted to say thank you to Pablo for proposing this change. As a grantee I was concerned about having to open source my code in a way that opened me up to patent trolls. I’m much more comfortable fully open-sourcing the code for Virtual Land Manager now, as I was okay using Apache for my integration packages but was hesitant to use it for the more essential parts of the platform extension I’ve developed.
The flip side of this is that forcing AtlasCorp to use Apache 2.0 allows someone to basically fork their code, change some logos, and offer their own competing service with practically no work involved. They could even build a few more features, charge less, and take away all of AtlasCorp’s business. Then they could go as far as patenting this derivative software, even though it’s all built on the core of something that was funded by the DAO, and use the patent to litigate AtlasCorp for using the software they wrote in the first place. And then try to litigate everyone who is using AtlasCorp’s software on their build, perhaps. I don’t know who would have the time or desire to be that much of a jerk, but it’s theoretically possible.
I’d much rather restrict derivative work than restrict the ability of the author to profit from and protect their IP.
No?
Apache 2 doesn’t require people forking it to post the changes, so Atlas don’t have to publish their modified Worlds server.
So did Atlas get a grant for this modified worlds server? Because what you’re describing sounds like someone who is just ignoring the requirements of the grant category.
Platform grantees create tools and applications that extend the power of the Decentraland platform or provide alternative ways to explore Decentraland’s ecosystem.
Requirements:
No they did not.
I was using an hypothetical world where the (non-atlas) worlds-content-server would have been done by a grant.
Atlas would not have been able to modify it and make it a business without making it open source (not great for business, at least not viable in all contexts.)
But HP, it is already a requirement of the grant framework for projects receiving grants to be open sourced. That doesn’t change if we allow the GNU GPL license to be used as an alternative to Apache 2.0.
Doesn’t it seem weird to say that grant projects need to be open sourced, but also have to allow derivative works that are proprietary? That is what I think is bad for business, and for innovation as well.
My issue is that derivative work should not be forced to be open source.
Of course it’s encouraged, but forcing people to release what they are working on is not good. Forcing anything on anyone is not good.
It should be a choice, not something forced upon people.
If you force people to release their stuff open source if they use a specific library, then many companies will just decide to not use that library. They will recode it themselves, which is a waste of time.
Look at software developed by big companies:
GitHub - facebook/react: The library for web and native user interfaces MIT License
GitHub - golang/go: The Go programming language BSD
GitHub - google/leveldb: LevelDB is a fast key-value storage library written at Google that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values. BSD
GitHub - solidjs/solid: A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces. MIT
GitHub - angular/angular: The modern web developer’s platform MIT
GitHub - nasa/openmct: A web based mission control framework. Apache 2
I think we can see that libraries are generally not under GPL license.
The only softwares you see under GPL license are complete stuff, not libraries.
Imagine if anyone using react would have to open source their code? Facebook would probably not use it =)
It’s strong argument, and that’s what the porposal is about, to allow options. Not to everything to be GNU, but that if someone wants to contribute with GNU , to have the option, because right now is forced to use Apache 2 as per platforum contribution terms when you submit a proposal.
Allow also GNU License for platform parallel contributions
This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)