Topic: cbitcoin - Bitcoin implementation in C. Currently in development. - page 2. (Read 20266 times)

I have a good amount of experience in open source licensing so if you need to bounce ideas off of someone I can help, though to be honest, I'm philosophically quite a bit apart from you.  All of my recent open source work has been published under MIT allowing anyone to do pretty much whatever they please with it.  I don't care if people make money off of my work.  I can always charge them for support on the backend or make money off my reputation in the community.  It's been very successful for me so far. 

I'm going to come back to this another time. It's really hard knowing what to do. As I've said I've got a lot to think about, so it is all up in the air at the moment.

I agree! Placing the restriction that source must be provided in order to distribute a binary is certainly non-free (as in liberty). But it's not exactly clear what you are trying to accomplish with your license. Is it just that you want to make sure no one can make money off your work? What about the license used by Bitcoin-Qt and Bitcoind? Are those licenses okay with you? Because they are both permissive licenses (equivalent to MIT License, I think).

How does this resonate with you:

Well I don't care what the rust of the world thinks is free (as in liberty). I don't think trying to force people to include source code in their distributions is free. That's my opinion. If it means I have to make a new license to support this opinion then that's what I'll do.

Obviously I wont write the license, I'll get help with that.

If "the rest of the world" thought that way then why don't they all use the AGPL? Why does server-side code get treated differently?

The rest of the world does not consider that free software.

Closed source does not permit easy reverse engineering or modification, by its very nature.

That is what I was saying and I thought (I shouldn't have said "derivative"). I don't want proprietary applications using my library but I do not mind if they are closed-source. I do not consider closed source applications as necessarily proprietary. I consider them to be free software as long as they allow for free distribution, reverse-engineering and modification. Open-source is just an option.

So as you see I don't really want LGPL or GPL. In fact there is no license that exists which I can find which matches what I want. I want the license to be as anti-copyright as possible (Which is ironic since it's using copyright against itself). The only exception is to allow for compatibility with other open-source licenses. cbitcoin will need compatibility with the OpenSSL license which GPL isn't compatible with I realised.

LGPL:

Proprietary, closed source versions of the library are NOT permitted.
Proprietary, closed source applications using cbitcoin library are permitted.

GPL:

Proprietary, closed source versions of the library are NOT permitted.
Proprietary, closed source applications using cbitcoin library are NOT permitted.

In either case, LGPL or GPL, your cbitcoin code remains free software.  Nobody is permitted to modify and distribute cbitcoin without also providing source code.

LGPL is certainly preferred over GPL.

I use the MIT License (which is a permissive license) for all of my open source work (in my signature). Many developers have thanked me for providing things like DSP Filters under a permissive license to encourage commercial usage.

Do they have to provide the source with binary distributions?

Linkability is precisely the distinction between GPL and LGPL.  GPL can only link with GPL.  LGPL can link with anything, but anyone who distributes the library must still provide source and any modifications done to the library.

Hmm. I'm not used to all the legal-speak sorry. It does go over my head a lot of it. 

What about linking to the library which is what I really mean to say. That's a different story isn't it?

LGPL prevents distribution of proprietary copies of the library.

What I'm thinking about is a new license that aims to satisfy these two things:

1. Does not require source distribution alongside binary distribution of derivative works.
2. Places restriction on the license of derivative works but is more compatible with other licenses for linking purposes.

The second is the most awkward. It would need to be some sort of compromise between the GPL and LGPL to allow for compatibility but at the same time prevent proprietary derivative works.

So?  With this kind of argumentum ad populum, I guess there would be no one to advocate for open-source licenses at all in the first place, considering how little popular they were at some point in the history of computing.

If the benefit you're talking about is only about mass adoption, I do not care.  Even if it means a "better quality", I do not care either.  I prefer to use a Free Software rather than a proprietary software, even if it has a lower quality.

What exactly is it that you want to "protect" against?

Check out this article:
The GPL Family of Licenses Sees a Decline in Adoption

I do notice now there are some things I misunderstood about the GPL license, despite reading it several times. It maybe that a custom license will be required for cbitcoin to solve issues with the GPL but also protect against proprietary software also.

If you are talking about wallet ripoffs, then you are probably right.  But what about POS systems, ATM firmware, ERP applications, all which could use some bitcoin integration but are unable to open source for one reason or another.  Maybe the codebase uses other third-party closed source code... maybe there are corporate license restrictions to conform to a specific industry law... maybe there are security implications for open sourcing the code.

The point is that there are so many untold reasons why someone may want to use the cbitcoin library in their code to further bitcoin adoption.  Pigeonholing it with GPL unnecessarily limits it, especially considering that the LGPL was designed specifically with libraries in mind to fix this issue.

I think the main question is what is the end goal.  To expand the uptake of bitcoin?  Or make sure that developers of open source software have a competitive advantage over the corporations?  If we were further along with bitcoin, I think you could make an argument for a GPL library. Unfortunately, unless those with closed source interests have an easy and cheap way into bitcoin, they aren't going to spend their money.  Bitcoin isn't big enough.

If LGPL is going to be a no go... let me make a suggestion.  How about a dual license.  GPL and a closed source license where the closed source licensee pays some fee to use the library how they see fit.

My opinion is that the benefit of having moneyed commercial interests invest energy into the Bitcoin ecosystem outweighs the disadvantage of having more proprietary software.

You only need to compare the success of OS X and iOS to the success of Linux to see how proprietary software can be superior for end users.

Is it?  Oh shit it is.  I really thought it was GPL.   My bad.   I guess you guys win.