cbitcoin - Bitcoin implementation in C. Currently in development.

[grondilu]

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

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.

[MatthewLM]

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.

[jgarzik]

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.

LGPL prevents distribution of proprietary copies of the library.

[MatthewLM]

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?

[notme]

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?

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.

[MatthewLM]

Do they have to provide the source with binary distributions?

[misterbigg]

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.

[jgarzik]

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

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.

[MatthewLM]

Proprietary, closed source applications using cbitcoin library are permitted.

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.

[jgarzik]

Proprietary, closed source applications using cbitcoin library are permitted.

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.

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.

[MatthewLM]

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?

[misterbigg]

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.

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:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
 

[MatthewLM]

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.

[deadserious]

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 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. 

[grondilu]

After some thought, and a few mail exchanges with RMS, my opinion is that it would be nice if Mathew could stick to GPL (yes, GPL, not LGPL).    People would indeed not be able to link to cbitcoin without releasing their source code.  So be it.

[misterbigg]

After some thought, and a few mail exchanges with RMS, my opinion is that it would be nice if Mathew could stick to GPL (yes, GPL, not LGPL).    People would indeed not be able to link to cbitcoin without releasing their source code.  So be it.

Well what's the point of emailing RMS? His answer is always GPL...

[MatthewLM]

Yes, you would expect GPL to be the only answer. I did email him my idea. I expect to have criticism on it. 

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 don't care if people make money using cbitcoin. That would be great. You clearly do not understand. I do not want proprietary software being made using cbitcoin. By that I mean software with use, copy and/or modification restrictions.

[kjj]

After some thought, and a few mail exchanges with RMS, my opinion is that it would be nice if Mathew could stick to GPL (yes, GPL, not LGPL).    People would indeed not be able to link to cbitcoin without releasing their source code.  So be it.

Well what's the point of emailing RMS? His answer is always GPL...

No, it isn't.  He has a fully nuanced answer.  I will attempt to condense and summarize, but he explains it better, so it is worth the time to read it.

Basically, if you have a library that does something that everyone already does, using LGPL is the right way to go, as it allows people to use free libraries with their non-free software.  If they don't use the LGPL library, they will just use some other library that is worse (for the free software community).  It is better for the world to have free alternatives for common things, than not to.

But, if you have a library that does something that no one else does, it would be better (for the free software community) if the library was full GPL.  This way, developers that don't particularly support the free software ideals will have to decide if keeping their software non-free is worth the effort of duplicating the GPL library.  Some developers will choose to make their software free to avoid duplicating that effort, which increases the freedom in the world.

[MatthewLM]

Here's a draft copy of a largely modified GPLv3 license which is closer to what I want.

Code:

DRAFT LICENSE

1. Definitions

"Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

"The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License.  Each licensee is addressed as "you".  "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy.  The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy.  Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies.  Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

2. Permissions

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met.  This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program.  The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work.  This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force.

You may convey verbatim copies of any part of the Program's source code
 as it is. These copies must remain licensed under this license.

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, providing the work is licensed under the
entire terms of this license and any applicable additional terms allowed
in section 3.

3. Additional Terms

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

	a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
    terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
	
	b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
    author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
    Notices displayed by works containing it; or
	
	c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
    requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
    reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
	
	d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
    authors of the material; or
	
	e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
    trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
	
	f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
    material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
    it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
    any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
    those licensors and authors.
	
 	g) Requiring copyright attributions or legal notices in advertising
    material.

You may not add any further license terms to the material. Additional
terms can only apply to the material you add to the covered work and
cannot be applied to this Program.

Additional obligations may be placed upon you under an aggreement with any
party. You may supplement additional terms to this license with an
agreement between you and another party providing these terms comply with
section 7.

4. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License.  Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 8).

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License.  If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 6.

5. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program.  Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.  However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work.  These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License.  Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

6. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License and any applicable
additional terms allowed in section 3.  You are not 
responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations.  If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph.

You may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim
in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making,
using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion
of it.

7. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from your obigations under this License.  If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all.  For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

8. Patents

A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based.  The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version.  For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

In the following two paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement).  To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License.  You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

9. Disclaimer of Warranty

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

10. Limitation of Liability

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

11. Interpretation of Sections 9 and 10.

If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

[deadserious]

But, if you have a library that does something that no one else does, it would be better (for the free software community) if the library was full GPL.  This way, developers that don't particularly support the free software ideals will have to decide if keeping their software non-free is worth the effort of duplicating the GPL library.  Some developers will choose to make their software free to avoid duplicating that effort, which increases the freedom in the world.

He has a point if the market is such that a commercial entity would invest in that closed source alternative.  Bitcoin however is looking to encourage uptake, not discourage it.  By putting that financial and technical hurdle in front of business, you are killing innovation before it starts.