Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add license mit #13

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@oxarbitrage
Copy link
Member

commented Feb 18, 2018

  • Need to add licensing info for include/fc/stacktrace.hpp.
LICENSE Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
MIT License

Copyright (c) 2017 bitshares-fc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@pmconrad

pmconrad Feb 18, 2018

That doesn't make sense, bitshares-fc is not an entity that can own copyright.

AFAIK the only use-case for the copyright owner is when it comes to defending the license in court. Which is unlikely to happen, given the liberal nature of the MIT license as such.

We could use "The BitShare Core Development Team" (although that's not really a legally existing entity either), or perhaps the BBF. @xeroc @ryanRfox opinions?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@clockworkgr

clockworkgr Mar 1, 2018

Member

Don't think it has to be a legal entity at all.

"BitShares Core Development Team" or "BitShares Developers" would be fine I think.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@abitmore

abitmore Mar 7, 2018

Member

I suggest "Copyright (c) 2013-2018 Daniel Larimer and contributors."

@ryanRfox

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 19, 2018

I'm not sure the proper entity to assign the copyright to either. I agree "bitshares-fc" does not seem the proper entity. bitshares-core introduces a stub for CONTRIBUTORS (yet remains blank). Looking at the fork hierarchy, none of the FC repositories contain a LICENSE file. My intent will always be to honor all prior copyright holders and aim to offer all code committed to the BitShares organization under MIT license (bitsharaes-core, bitshares-ui, bitshares-fc, etc.). I am keen to hear from @xeroc what the BBF may recommend based on their ongoing legal work toward rewriting the whitepaper(s).

@pmconrad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 20, 2018

Regarding history - the library is public domain, according to this post from BM: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8571.msg142379#msg142379

Stuff we write has no restrictions except those imposed on it by 3rd party dependencies.

Regarding 3rd party dependencies - please do not merge this PR before libreadline has been replaced.

@xeroc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 20, 2018

Given the nature of the MIT license, does it actually matter who is written next to "copyright"?

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 20, 2018

Given the nature of the MIT license, does it actually matter who is written next to "copyright"?

Sure. The MIT license says:

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

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 22, 2018

FYI Steem just moved fc into the main repo: steemit/steem#2145 (comment). EOS has already done so long before. Perhaps we can do the same.

@pmconrad pmconrad referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2018
@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 24, 2018

Regarding history - the library is public domain, according to this post from BM: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8571.msg142379#msg142379

Stuff we write has no restrictions except those imposed on it by 3rd party dependencies.

IANAL, strictly speaking, I don't think BM's post was appropriate, nor implicitly included fc.

  1. the post was posted on 2014-10-31, at that time, according to the Bitshares Social Consensus associated with AGS, AGS "holders" and PTS holders would receive at least 10% share-drop if the code is used to launch a new chain. That said, there may be no restriction about how to distribute the code or binary built from it, but there was at least a restriction about how to use it. Licensing the software under public domain was not of the AGS holders' interest, although strictly speaking BM has the right to do so since "AGS is donation with no strings attached".

  2. in regards to fc, in the post BM used a word "we" may be referring to the team, and a word "write" which was present tense, both are ambiguous. Latest commit of BM's fc library is on Aug 19, 2013, which is clearly a product of his own but not the team. When he was saying "we write", it's not clear whether his own product (fc) was implicitly included, since it (fc) may be one of the "3rd party dependencies".

Of course, we can argue that since fc used readline so fc should be licensed under AGPL. However, that means the product using fc (e.g. bitshares-core) should also be licensed under AGPL, which is perhaps not what we want.

Personally I still prefer that BM clearly license the bm/fc repository under MIT, it's just a few clicks if he really wants to do so.

@pmconrad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 24, 2018

IMO the social consensus is irrelevant here, since it never was a legally binding agreement.

The AGPL code was removed some time after that thread. The only remaining "problem" is the readline dependency. Yes, the transitive nature of GPL means that fc and in turn bitshares-core (as well as all the other graphene chains) have to be licensed under the GPL as well. I think we do not want to do that, that's why we should replace readline.

The rest of the fc code either has its own license (BSD or MIT mostly), or was created by BM/Invictus/Cryptonomex. The latter part is what we must be concerned about.

Steem just moved fc into the main repo. EOS has already done so long before.

This opens another argument: If the code has been moved into the main repo, it is now also covered by the license of that repo. Not sure about Steem, but BM's current involvement in EOS means he probably has the authority to make that move. EOS is MIT-licensed as well, right? We can then either try to move to the current EOS version of fc and use the EOS license, or we take that move as an indication that a wide interpretation of BM's statement from 2014 is in order and that our fc version is indeed public domain.

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 24, 2018

According to https://github.com/EOSIO/eos/blob/master/LICENSE.txt, EOS will be licensed under MIT after June 1, 2018, aka the scheduled launch date, but not before. By the way, the change was made on Jun 21, 2017, before that date, it's MIT.

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 24, 2018

Steem is now MIT licensed. However, there was a drama when changing to MIT, which I guess is related to FC. It's clearly written in https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/LICENSE.md:

The following license applies to code contained within this repository that is created by Steemit, Inc. Other copy right holders have licensed dependencies such as Graphene, FC, and Boost under their own individual licenses.

The MIT License
...

So even if the main repo is MIT licensed, FC is not included.

@pmconrad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 25, 2018

Hm, so steem did their due diligence...

There's a significant delta between the pre-2017-06 version of EOS-fc and ours. In particular, the threading stuff has been ripped out. Using this is not an option.

We should merge #14 once @jmjatlanta has pushed his latest changes, then contact BM and

  1. offer #14 so he can get rid of the GPL problem he has with eos-fc, and
  2. ask him to confirm that we can re-license bitshares-fc as MIT.
@xeroc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 25, 2018

I did asked BM to confirm/allow tagging bitshares-fc with MIT. His answer was 'sure' ..

@pmconrad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 25, 2018

Excellent!

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 28, 2018

#14 (comment) quoted here:

Note: The new editline library has a liberal license, but still requires documentation changes. See the license at https://github.com/troglobit/editline/blob/master/LICENSE

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 1, 2018

Thank you @pmconrad. Now we only need to finalize the main license file.

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 7, 2018

Specifically, in the main license file, I think we need to mention the files in the licenses directory.

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 8, 2018

About the Bloom Filter Library included in this repository:

/*
 *********************************************************************
 *                                                                   *
 *                           Open Bloom Filter                       *
 *                                                                   *
 * Author: Arash Partow - 2000                                       *
 * URL: http://www.partow.net                                        *
 * URL: http://www.partow.net/programming/hashfunctions/index.html   *
 *                                                                   *
 * Copyright notice:                                                 *
 * Free use of the Open Bloom Filter Library is permitted under the  *
 * guidelines and in accordance with the most current version of the *
 * Common Public License.                                            *
 * http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php                     *
 *                                                                   *
 *********************************************************************
*/
@abitmore abitmore referenced this pull request Mar 22, 2018
oxarbitrage pushed a commit to oxarbitrage/bitshares-fc that referenced this pull request Mar 23, 2018
@clockworkgr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 25, 2018

Original FC library MIT licensed -> https://github.com/bytemaster/fc/blob/phoenix/LICENSE.md

@abitmore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 26, 2018

Need to add licensing info for include/fc/stacktrace.hpp . OP updated.

@j4tner j4tner referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.