3 ms·

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

by 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.

by api 7y ago

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.