5 ms·

This looks like an open source Zerotier, my dream has come true.

by sansnomme 7y ago

e12e 7y ago
Zerotier is open source?
- tptacek 7y ago
  It is, but under a noncommercial license.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Oh, indeed. I wasn't aware of that: https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/blob/master/LICENSE.... > Business Source License 1.1 > License text copyright (c) 2017 MariaDB Corporation Ab, All Rights Reserved. > "Business Source License" is a trademark of MariaDB Corporation Ab. Which is a bit odd, as MariaDB itself is gpl2 (+commercial)? https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/10.5/COPYING https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/10.5/COPYING
    - detaro 7y ago
      MariaDB Corporation uses the license for some other products surrounding MariaDB, not for the main database system.
  - api 7y ago
    We have a blog post about our transition to the BSL from the GPL: https://www.zerotier.com/on-the-gpl-to-bsl-transition/ https://www.zerotier.com/on-the-gpl-to-bsl-transition/ I don't think the BSL is perfect. We're thinking and discussing with a number of people about potentially better licenses that would be closer to traditional FOSS while preventing "SaaSification" and similar. I think we're in the early stages of a renegotiation of the open source social contract and I don't think we've figured out the best model yet. The AGPL is close but suffers from two problems: (1) it isn't perfect either and has numerous loopholes, and (2) there are a ton of companies out there with an irrational but nevertheless very entrenched phobia of anything associated with the GPL (as we have discovered). Maybe something a bit like the AGPL but not GPL branded would work.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I'm not judging, I'm simply relating a fact: Nebula is MIT licensed, and ZeroTier is BSL'd; a paid license is required to use ZeroTier in a closed-source application.
      - api 7y ago
        Yes, that's intentional. It used to be GPL which imposed the same requirement, but we shifted to BSL because it's a bit more explicit and because of (again, irrational) GPL-phobia on the part of some non-trivial subset of corporate users. BTW the closed source restriction in the BSL is effectively the same as the GPL and the only other meaningful restriction is on SaaS direct monetization. Companies can still run ZT for free and run it behind the scenes for free. It's a lot like the AGPL.
        sanxiyn 7y ago
        This is not true. AGPL allows SaaS monetization (you just need to publish the source). BSL does not allow it.
        api 7y ago
        That's why the BSL exists: to stop SaaS companies from monetizing the software without giving anything back to its developers. A SaaS company can get a commercial license.
        tptacek 7y ago
        Or just use Nebula, which is superior in some ways (though presumably not every way) to ZeroTier, and MIT-licensed.

This looks like an open source Zerotier, my dream has come true.

e12e 7y ago

Zerotier is open source?

tptacek 7y ago
It is, but under a noncommercial license.
- e12e 7y ago
  Oh, indeed. I wasn't aware of that: https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/blob/master/LICENSE.... > Business Source License 1.1 > License text copyright (c) 2017 MariaDB Corporation Ab, All Rights Reserved. > "Business Source License" is a trademark of MariaDB Corporation Ab. Which is a bit odd, as MariaDB itself is gpl2 (+commercial)? https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/10.5/COPYING https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/10.5/COPYING
  - detaro 7y ago
    MariaDB Corporation uses the license for some other products surrounding MariaDB, not for the main database system.
- api 7y ago
  We have a blog post about our transition to the BSL from the GPL: https://www.zerotier.com/on-the-gpl-to-bsl-transition/ https://www.zerotier.com/on-the-gpl-to-bsl-transition/ I don't think the BSL is perfect. We're thinking and discussing with a number of people about potentially better licenses that would be closer to traditional FOSS while preventing "SaaSification" and similar. I think we're in the early stages of a renegotiation of the open source social contract and I don't think we've figured out the best model yet. The AGPL is close but suffers from two problems: (1) it isn't perfect either and has numerous loopholes, and (2) there are a ton of companies out there with an irrational but nevertheless very entrenched phobia of anything associated with the GPL (as we have discovered). Maybe something a bit like the AGPL but not GPL branded would work.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I'm not judging, I'm simply relating a fact: Nebula is MIT licensed, and ZeroTier is BSL'd; a paid license is required to use ZeroTier in a closed-source application.
    - api 7y ago
      Yes, that's intentional. It used to be GPL which imposed the same requirement, but we shifted to BSL because it's a bit more explicit and because of (again, irrational) GPL-phobia on the part of some non-trivial subset of corporate users. BTW the closed source restriction in the BSL is effectively the same as the GPL and the only other meaningful restriction is on SaaS direct monetization. Companies can still run ZT for free and run it behind the scenes for free. It's a lot like the AGPL.
      - sanxiyn 7y ago
        This is not true. AGPL allows SaaS monetization (you just need to publish the source). BSL does not allow it.
        api 7y ago
        That's why the BSL exists: to stop SaaS companies from monetizing the software without giving anything back to its developers. A SaaS company can get a commercial license.
        tptacek 7y ago
        Or just use Nebula, which is superior in some ways (though presumably not every way) to ZeroTier, and MIT-licensed.