[DAO:a239094] Allow also GNU License for platform contributions

Governance
1

by 0x598f8af1565003ae7456dac280a18ee826df7a2c (pablo)

Linked Draft Proposal

Allow also GNU License for platform contributions

Summary

Proposed change in terms and conditions of Platform grant contributions to also allow a 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 a GNU license”

Abstract

In 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”

Change proposed to also allow a 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 a GNU license”

… apart from this, I think the DAO could works on its own License, for example, opensource but limited use to projects within the scope of Decentraland. But this would go in a different proposal

Motivation

Allow other open-source licenses and not only Apache 2

Specification

In 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”

Change proposed to also allow a 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 a GNU license”

“a GNU license” should link to Search Results

Impacts

Not necessary to mention impacts, more options for licenses will be allowed.

Implementation Pathways

Change text and link on each necessary grant proposal submission, in the Final consent section.

Conclusion

The change is minimal and it allows more options for contributors

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2 Likes
2

Hello Pablo, I’m voting YES and I hope this will help reach the acceptance threshold. It’s been a while since I’ve seen over 6 million VP.

1 Like
3

I had to ask AI what the significance of this was, which would have been nice to be included in this proposal.

From what I gathered, Apache 2.0 allows open-source code to be reproduced in private works including those commercial - where a GNU license requires that all derivatives remain open-source.

1 Like
4

If that is the only thing that is different, is it really a meaningful change to the existing system?

If anything, we would want anyone using the open-sourced code from the DAO only to be able to use it to make other open-sourced products that benefit the DAO.

I know I was the person who submitted the poll that led to the governance that requires open-sourced code, but I believe @HPrivakos was the one who worked with @Fehz to fine tune the details of the governance proposal, so perhaps he can explain the reasons Apache was chosen of GNU and the benefits associated

5

Dear Pablo, I’m not sure what the significance of the proposed change is. Can you outline why this change is important please?

6

I can only vote abstain as I do not know what kind of impact this can have on DCL. Even @DOCTORdripp use of AI to explain leaves me without the knowledge to confidently vote yes or no.

7

Allow also GNU License for platform contributions

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 97% 9,238,483 VP (22 votes)
  • No 2% 197,098 VP (1 votes)
  • Abstain 1% 170,838 VP (5 votes)
8

Maybe the people who voted Yes can do so ?
And if not… Maybe they can explain why they voted Yes ? :angry:

9

In the proposal there is a link to tl;drlegal website where you can find really short explanations of the licenses in plain English text, I repeat the link here again: tldrlegal

10

That does not answer @JohnElf’s question.

11

ok, right now, only the MIT license is allowed, this proposal will enable contributors to choose a GNU license for their contributions.

It’s important to allow more options and don’t force a specific license for those who prefer to contribute under GNU license

12

Remember that a lot of land owners have no idea what that means.
Can you describe a good use-case ?

13

You still haven’t really described the impact of contributing under GNU license. Just pointing to search results isn’t enough. It’s way too random !
Better to extract one of the good results, such as this:

GNU General Public License v3 (GPL-3)
You may copy, distribute and modify the software as long as you track changes/dates in source files. Any modifications to or software including (via compiler) GPL-licensed code must also be made available under the GPL along with build & install instructions.

It does makes sense to want to have your code be protected by this. But is it possible ?

14

This site provides good insight into the impact:
https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

The Free Software Foundation considers the Apache License, Version 2.0 to be a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.

Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects.

That last sentence should be the answer to the question: the impact is that the DAO would then not be able to use the resulting code in DCL with an Apache 2.0 license, if it still desires to do so.

15

I am having a hard time finding confirmation that indeed the DAO should desire to have all scene code be required to have an Apache 2.0 license.

It is true that one of the initial hesitations I had about coding content in DCL was this licensing specification.

Can some scenes have GPLv3 licensed code, and others Apache 2.0, running on a common Apache 2.0 licensed platform ?
I am not an expert in this particular field, but I actually don’t see why not :thinking:

16

Not an expert either but …

Decentraland scenes are separate from the explorer code. The scene code is stored on Catalyst servers but isn’t part of the Explorer codebase. For example, it’s similar to how web pages work: you can visit websites, stored in servers, governed by different licenses using the same browser. The browser itself doesn’t need to match the license of the website it’s rendering. Likewise, you can use a GNU-licensed browser to view non-GNU-licensed sites.

for example, the in-world browser component being GNU means:

  • You can use it for free in your scene.
  • The explorer rendering a scene using a GNU component, can be of any license. Because the component code it can render is not copied in the explorer code, it just executes or renders it.
  • If you build a product and use the component as a dependency, that is the component code will be copied into your program code, your product needs to be GPL.
  • Your scene needs to be GPL if it uses that component because the component code will be copied inside your own code.

Also, an imaginary explorer could have a private copy license and still render GNU scenes, because the scene code is not copied and distributed or modified.

17

I guess the next step should be to start a Poll / Pitch to see if the DAO should commission an expert to answer this question !