by 0x598f8af1565003ae7456dac280a18ee826df7a2c (pablo)
Some important software we all know is under the license GNU GPL, like Blender, WordPress, Telegram, etc.
Currently all repositories of decentraland github account are under Apache 2.0 License.
This proposal is to make the change to GNU GPL. Also for any DAO funded proposal from now on.
For people unaware what it means, I copy paste an answer in other post to add this License as option to platform contributions:
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.
Keep in mind that although GNU GPL is quite restrictive, it still allows bussiness like education or plugins for Blender, Wordpress, etc. Also with different licenses.
Hey @pablo Thank you for this proposal. Just to clarify, this seems like GNU AGPL-3 would basically require the licenses to be open-source for the coding? And right now, with our current set up, Microsoft can take the code and privately make money off of it?
Sorry for my non-technical language. Just making sure I understand.
Essentially, Apache 2.0 allows software to be used in other proprietary software (not open source), and allows for someone to apply for a patent on their software, even if their software uses your software as a dependency.
From what I’ve seen, software patents are generally used by patent trolls in an abusive manner that slows down innovation, so I’m fully in support of Pablo’s proposal here. The GNU GPL requires that any software using GNU GPL software must also be open source, which I think is much more aligned with the intent of open source in general.
GPL forces forks to use the exact same license (or something even more restrictive) and prevents proprietary software from using those softwares/libraries.
We should have all projects funded by grants as opensource, but we should not force anyone remotely using those to also open source their projects.
If my POAP booth was under GPL license, DecentralGames could not use it without opensourcing their whole casino.
GPL would prevent many projects to use scenes/libraries/softwares developed by the DAO.
If you look at the example of softwares using GPL, you can see they are all complete products, not libraries.
You can’t really integrate Blender or Wordpress in something else so it’s fine to be under GPL, but if the DAO fund a library, all scenes using that library would be forced to be opensourced.
There are many cases where this is not possible, so devs will have to recode it from scratch rather than using the DAO funded library, which is stupid and a lost of time.
Now you have me in between. Do you believe what we currently have is better? Or is there a better solution out there than what we currently have and what this is?
The license we currently use leave the choice to the person modifying it to not publish it, while the GPL license forces people to publish the code source for any changes made (unless it’s only being used in a private circle, like within a company).
I’m against forcing people to use GPL.
We can add it to the list of approved licenses and let people choose between Apache 2 and GPL but I really don’t think we should force GPL on everyone.
I’m a big fan of MIT license, which is: “Do what you want with it, as long as you cite me as original author if you share the original or modified version”
I actually agree with HP here and am now thinking we need to modify this. Foundation projects should be handled separately from DAO funded projects. I think we need to clear up some definitions as well.
Is there a difference between “developed by the Decentraland Foundation” and “funded by the Decentraland Foundation”? And do DAO grants fall under the latter? It seems like there could be a lot of overlap here. This also conflicts with the other highly supported proposal to add GPU-GPL as an additional option for grant projects. I’m going to change my vote to “No”.
Now, here is something I’ve been thinking about. Practically speaking, can we actually enforce… anything about what license is used? The license protects the author of the code. If they fork their own code after a grant finishes out, who is going to come after them for it? Apache, GPL, doesn’t matter. They aren’t going to sue themselves for misusing their own property. So all we really have to punish that behavior is social stigma. Maybe that’s not even an unethical thing to do at all - as technically you’ve fulfilled your duty to the grant and should be free to move on.
All we can really do is hold or revoke grant funds for projects that don’t meet the framework requirements. There’s really no way to enforce someone sticking to the spirit of their own license. So I’m not so sure it makes sense to specify any license requirement at all.
Why not allow someone to put their work in the Public Domain or use Creative Commons if they want to? The specific licensing used doesn’t really have any effect on the DAO or Decentraland community. The only thing that this licensing requirement really does is impose a standard that may not be appropriate for every scenario.
I suggest we start a new proposal. To abolish any specific licensing requirements for anyone, simplifying the requirement to, “open source and permissive of derivative work”. I feel like that is less restrictive without being overly broad.