8 ms·

The title should be changed as it is not "open source" as is used when talking about software licenses, or as defined by the OSI [0] [0] https://opensource.org

by Naac 3y ago

The title should be changed as it is not "open source" as is used when talking about software licenses, or as defined by the OSI [0] [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

CuriousCosmic 3y ago
From the git repo. For open-source use: If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3. For non-commercial use: You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases. This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0. From time to time, our non-commercial users may desire an license arrangement different to the one provided by the standard Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 to suit their needs both now and in future, and such terms may be approved and negotiated on a case-by-case basis typically for a fee or other remunerative or protective arrangement. It's licensed under multiple licenses, one of which is the GPLv3 which is not only open source, it's also free software. By every definition this is open source software.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Thanks! I know it's confusing, and I'm a little unsure about whether it's "Open Source" if like this, too. If anyone can tell me this is false, that's good as it's important to get right. But I think it's fine.
  - binarycrusader 3y ago
    Yes, this is similar to what Qt did / has done for years. I personally think it fits the definition of "open source" since it's multi-licensed.
    - ignoramous 3y ago
      For open-source use If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3. For non-commercial use You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases. This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0. Well, this isn't exactly dual license, but the presence of GPLv3 comprehensively nullifies Polyform, so it is FOSS. IANAL.
      - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
        It's better interpreted as decreasing degrees of permissivity. 1. GPLv3 or later 2. polyform non-commercial for non-commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works. 3. commercial license for commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works. --- In other words, Use GPLv3 however if you can't use GPLv3 but are non-commercial, use polyform non-commercial. Otherwise buy a commercial license.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        Yes!
        ignoramous 3y ago
        You may want to reword as "licensed under either GPLv3 or Polyform Non-commercial 1.0 at your option" or some such, like most rust-lang projects do; ex: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup Then give guidance on why one might choose one license over the other.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        Thank you! :) BTW - I like your RethinkDNS app -- very polished and popular! :)
  - digitallyfree 3y ago
    Since you're releasing this under GPLv3 this is indeed open source. Having multiple license options does not affect this.
    - smarx007 3y ago
      No, an extra restriction ("For open-source use") is added on top of the GPLv3 license, which violates the license, actually (see §7): > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. It's better to license under the stricter AGPLv3 and not put any extra conditions.
      - 29J 3y ago
        keepamovin doesn't have or need a licence at all (GPL or otherwise) so can't be violating it. He is distributing his program by virtue of being the author/copyright holder, not by virtue of owning a (GPL) licence for it. He doesn't need a distribution licence (from himself). In LICENSE.MD, he declares that I (for example) may take a copy of his program provided I choose one of the licences he is willing to offer me. One of the choices is known as the GPL. Let's say I choose that. Now he's given me a copy of the program and granted me an unmodified, unrestricted GPL licence to use and distribute it. Let's write the terms down in a file called licence.gpl. (This is just a copy of the GPL itself.) I don't hold the program's copyright. I don't have a licence to distribute the program further under his LICENSE.md but I do now own a licence to use/distribute my copy of it as described in the licence he's granted me, licence.gpl. My distribution licence (licence.gpl) doesn't allow me to add extra restrictions when distributing. So people I distribute to under the terms of my licence.gpl will automatically be granted a GPL licence by keepamovin (not me) to distribute further. keepamovin as the author and perpetual sole copyright holder is different from me and people I distribute his program to, who are all mere licencees never copyright holders. We all hold licences he has granted to us directly and individually. (We don't grant licences to each other, having no right to do so. The GPL allows me to distribute my copy of the program to you at which point keepamovin will automatically give you a licence. (A licence is more abstract than a licence file.)) All distributions rooted in my copy should probably make clear that they are under licence.gpl not LICENSES.md. But that's something for any program offered under a choice of licences to solve. The copy of the program at the site above is offered by keepamovin under an open source licence (GPL) and also other licences. The site thus does have an open source offering of the program. So it's true that "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source". (Just as a licence is more abstract than a licence file, a program here is more abstract than a copy of a program. A person's giving a program to another person means ownership has transferred. So I was careful to write "copy of the program" above, as none of this distribution/redistribution involves transferring ownership of the program, which abstract work remains forever only keepamovin's.)
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    It looks like you may have made a mistake similar to the ones described in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ReleaseNotOriginal https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ReleaseNotOrigi... and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatibleAlone https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatible.... Basically, it's generally not useful to say "if you meet some condition, then you can have this software under the GPL", because any one person who meets the condition can basically end up making it GPL for everyone.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      You could be right. I don’t know.
      - rgj 3y ago
        TL;DR you need to fix this Let's say I have an open source project under the GPLv3 which only contains a foo.txt. "If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3." So I can merge the BrowserBox Pro under GPLv3 to become part of my project. Now I remove the foo.txt and my project will be a BrowserBox Pro clone under GPLv3 without the commercial restriction.
        orra 3y ago
        I think that's a little too reductive—foo.txt wasn't a real app. Nonetheless, I agree with your broad point: that if somebody can use it under the GPL, they can redistribute it and then all those downstream users can use it under the GPL. But I disagree there is anything to fix. It's copyleft FOSS but businesses are encouraged to buy a license. Everybody wins.
        rgj 3y ago
        Ok, foo.sh then. He needs to fix it - if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.
  - orra 3y ago
    Thanks for open sourcing this. However, you might prefer to use AGPLv3 over GPLv3, given the nature of this software.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      What would be the risks of that? And the risks of keeping it the way it is?
      - 29J 3y ago
        The GPL is pre-web so has a bug allowing web programmers to use a GPL'ed program in their web service without having to give their users the web service's source code. The AGPL fixes that bug so that such web programmers will need to give their users the web service's source code. Therefore the AGPL constrains licensees more and frees their users more.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        I see, thank you! In your opinion what's the right license for this situation?
        orra 3y ago
        I don't want to be overly dramatic. Your current license is decent. But the AGPLv3 is better: it fixes what is essentially a loophole in the GPL (the "ASP loophole", as described by the other user here). From your perspective, you might find it even easier to sell your paid licences to companies and governments, if you use the AGPLv3. There's little downside to switching, because the AGPLv3 is still open source, and has similar compatibility with other open source licenses. You've already released this under GPLv3, but you can switch going forward.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        True. Alright, I think the reasons for us to stick with GPL are not as compelling as I first thought. I've updated my view. We will switch to AGPL. :) On govs, unfortunately, but I still think it's a benefit: governments can simply use it without purchasing a commercial license or using GPL, under the Polyform Noncommercial. They can definitely purchase support, deployments, and customizations tho.
- binarycrusader 3y ago
  Confusingly, that's not in the "LICENSE.md" file (at the time of this post): https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/LICENSE.m... Which is showing this commit: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/commit/84f35db2f953236b34aa0f81f1e2fa8f5b1b1572 https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/commit/84f35db2f953... Only in the README.md file: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/README.md https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/README.md
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Alright, I'll put that in the license file! :)
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  Is the any reason someone would choose to use it under the weird Polyform licence over the GPL?
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    A government, non-profit or security researcher (or institute, for instance) could use it to build their own proprietary code that is not under GPL, but that uses BrowserBox Pro.
- Tomte 3y ago
  > By every definition this is open source software. No, it's not. "If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses. It also follows that it runs foul of GPL3's prohibition on additional restrictions. I guess it's supposed to be a user-friendly wording about using it in your own development (this is GPL code, you can link it with your GPL code). But it actually means that unless you're developing open source software, you may not use it. Not even unmodified. It's probably not what the creator means, though.
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    > "If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses. No it is not. "If you are creating an open source application you may use the software under the GPLv3 or later" means "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license". This is just licensing all the software under 3 separate licenses: 1. The GPLv3 or later with no added conditions. 2. For non-commercial, closed source use you can use it under https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ 3. For commercial, closed source use you can buy a commercial license. That's fully acceptable for GPLv3 and open source licensing in general as long as the software can be licensed by you under each of those 3 licenses separately (i.e. the dependencies are all compatible with each license and all contributors have either signed over their rights or have documented agreement to the above licensing conditions). This is for the exact same reason that you can find dual GPLv3 (or AGPLv3) and closed source commercial licensed projects. It takes a bit of work on the IP management side but it's perfectly acceptable.
    - Tomte 3y ago
      > "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license". That's what they mean, but the wording does not support that. There is no way to use it under GPL, without developing something.
      - deleted 3y ago
Pannoniae 3y ago
The OSI's definition is not like a heavenly authority. It's not a trademark, so I can call something "open source" even if I put it in the license file that you aren't allowed to use it if you are a red panda. (which is usage discrimination) What OSI says and what I am allowed to call open source are not the same things.

by Naac 3y ago

The title should be changed as it is not "open source" as is used when talking about software licenses, or as defined by the OSI [0] [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

CuriousCosmic 3y ago

From the git repo. For open-source use: If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3. For non-commercial use: You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases. This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0. From time to time, our non-commercial users may desire an license arrangement different to the one provided by the standard Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 to suit their needs both now and in future, and such terms may be approved and negotiated on a case-by-case basis typically for a fee or other remunerative or protective arrangement. It's licensed under multiple licenses, one of which is the GPLv3 which is not only open source, it's also free software. By every definition this is open source software.

keepamovin 3y ago
Thanks! I know it's confusing, and I'm a little unsure about whether it's "Open Source" if like this, too. If anyone can tell me this is false, that's good as it's important to get right. But I think it's fine.
- binarycrusader 3y ago
  Yes, this is similar to what Qt did / has done for years. I personally think it fits the definition of "open source" since it's multi-licensed.
  - ignoramous 3y ago
    For open-source use If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3. For non-commercial use You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases. This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0. Well, this isn't exactly dual license, but the presence of GPLv3 comprehensively nullifies Polyform, so it is FOSS. IANAL.
    - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      It's better interpreted as decreasing degrees of permissivity. 1. GPLv3 or later 2. polyform non-commercial for non-commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works. 3. commercial license for commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works. --- In other words, Use GPLv3 however if you can't use GPLv3 but are non-commercial, use polyform non-commercial. Otherwise buy a commercial license.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        Yes!
        ignoramous 3y ago
        You may want to reword as "licensed under either GPLv3 or Polyform Non-commercial 1.0 at your option" or some such, like most rust-lang projects do; ex: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup Then give guidance on why one might choose one license over the other.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        Thank you! :) BTW - I like your RethinkDNS app -- very polished and popular! :)
- digitallyfree 3y ago
  Since you're releasing this under GPLv3 this is indeed open source. Having multiple license options does not affect this.
  - smarx007 3y ago
    No, an extra restriction ("For open-source use") is added on top of the GPLv3 license, which violates the license, actually (see §7): > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. It's better to license under the stricter AGPLv3 and not put any extra conditions.
    - 29J 3y ago
      keepamovin doesn't have or need a licence at all (GPL or otherwise) so can't be violating it. He is distributing his program by virtue of being the author/copyright holder, not by virtue of owning a (GPL) licence for it. He doesn't need a distribution licence (from himself). In LICENSE.MD, he declares that I (for example) may take a copy of his program provided I choose one of the licences he is willing to offer me. One of the choices is known as the GPL. Let's say I choose that. Now he's given me a copy of the program and granted me an unmodified, unrestricted GPL licence to use and distribute it. Let's write the terms down in a file called licence.gpl. (This is just a copy of the GPL itself.) I don't hold the program's copyright. I don't have a licence to distribute the program further under his LICENSE.md but I do now own a licence to use/distribute my copy of it as described in the licence he's granted me, licence.gpl. My distribution licence (licence.gpl) doesn't allow me to add extra restrictions when distributing. So people I distribute to under the terms of my licence.gpl will automatically be granted a GPL licence by keepamovin (not me) to distribute further. keepamovin as the author and perpetual sole copyright holder is different from me and people I distribute his program to, who are all mere licencees never copyright holders. We all hold licences he has granted to us directly and individually. (We don't grant licences to each other, having no right to do so. The GPL allows me to distribute my copy of the program to you at which point keepamovin will automatically give you a licence. (A licence is more abstract than a licence file.)) All distributions rooted in my copy should probably make clear that they are under licence.gpl not LICENSES.md. But that's something for any program offered under a choice of licences to solve. The copy of the program at the site above is offered by keepamovin under an open source licence (GPL) and also other licences. The site thus does have an open source offering of the program. So it's true that "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source". (Just as a licence is more abstract than a licence file, a program here is more abstract than a copy of a program. A person's giving a program to another person means ownership has transferred. So I was careful to write "copy of the program" above, as none of this distribution/redistribution involves transferring ownership of the program, which abstract work remains forever only keepamovin's.)
- josephcsible 3y ago
  It looks like you may have made a mistake similar to the ones described in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ReleaseNotOriginal https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ReleaseNotOrigi... and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatibleAlone https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatible.... Basically, it's generally not useful to say "if you meet some condition, then you can have this software under the GPL", because any one person who meets the condition can basically end up making it GPL for everyone.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    You could be right. I don’t know.
    - rgj 3y ago
      TL;DR you need to fix this Let's say I have an open source project under the GPLv3 which only contains a foo.txt. "If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3." So I can merge the BrowserBox Pro under GPLv3 to become part of my project. Now I remove the foo.txt and my project will be a BrowserBox Pro clone under GPLv3 without the commercial restriction.
      - orra 3y ago
        I think that's a little too reductive—foo.txt wasn't a real app. Nonetheless, I agree with your broad point: that if somebody can use it under the GPL, they can redistribute it and then all those downstream users can use it under the GPL. But I disagree there is anything to fix. It's copyleft FOSS but businesses are encouraged to buy a license. Everybody wins.
        rgj 3y ago
        Ok, foo.sh then. He needs to fix it - if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.
- orra 3y ago
  Thanks for open sourcing this. However, you might prefer to use AGPLv3 over GPLv3, given the nature of this software.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    What would be the risks of that? And the risks of keeping it the way it is?
    - 29J 3y ago
      The GPL is pre-web so has a bug allowing web programmers to use a GPL'ed program in their web service without having to give their users the web service's source code. The AGPL fixes that bug so that such web programmers will need to give their users the web service's source code. Therefore the AGPL constrains licensees more and frees their users more.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        I see, thank you! In your opinion what's the right license for this situation?
        orra 3y ago
        I don't want to be overly dramatic. Your current license is decent. But the AGPLv3 is better: it fixes what is essentially a loophole in the GPL (the "ASP loophole", as described by the other user here). From your perspective, you might find it even easier to sell your paid licences to companies and governments, if you use the AGPLv3. There's little downside to switching, because the AGPLv3 is still open source, and has similar compatibility with other open source licenses. You've already released this under GPLv3, but you can switch going forward.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        True. Alright, I think the reasons for us to stick with GPL are not as compelling as I first thought. I've updated my view. We will switch to AGPL. :) On govs, unfortunately, but I still think it's a benefit: governments can simply use it without purchasing a commercial license or using GPL, under the Polyform Noncommercial. They can definitely purchase support, deployments, and customizations tho.
binarycrusader 3y ago
Confusingly, that's not in the "LICENSE.md" file (at the time of this post): https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/LICENSE.m... Which is showing this commit: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/commit/84f35db2f953236b34aa0f81f1e2fa8f5b1b1572 https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/commit/84f35db2f953... Only in the README.md file: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/README.md https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/blob/boss/README.md
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Alright, I'll put that in the license file! :)
RobotToaster 3y ago
Is the any reason someone would choose to use it under the weird Polyform licence over the GPL?
- keepamovin 3y ago
  A government, non-profit or security researcher (or institute, for instance) could use it to build their own proprietary code that is not under GPL, but that uses BrowserBox Pro.
Tomte 3y ago
> By every definition this is open source software. No, it's not. "If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses. It also follows that it runs foul of GPL3's prohibition on additional restrictions. I guess it's supposed to be a user-friendly wording about using it in your own development (this is GPL code, you can link it with your GPL code). But it actually means that unless you're developing open source software, you may not use it. Not even unmodified. It's probably not what the creator means, though.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  > "If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses. No it is not. "If you are creating an open source application you may use the software under the GPLv3 or later" means "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license". This is just licensing all the software under 3 separate licenses: 1. The GPLv3 or later with no added conditions. 2. For non-commercial, closed source use you can use it under https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ 3. For commercial, closed source use you can buy a commercial license. That's fully acceptable for GPLv3 and open source licensing in general as long as the software can be licensed by you under each of those 3 licenses separately (i.e. the dependencies are all compatible with each license and all contributors have either signed over their rights or have documented agreement to the above licensing conditions). This is for the exact same reason that you can find dual GPLv3 (or AGPLv3) and closed source commercial licensed projects. It takes a bit of work on the IP management side but it's perfectly acceptable.
  - Tomte 3y ago
    > "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license". That's what they mean, but the wording does not support that. There is no way to use it under GPL, without developing something.
    - deleted 3y ago

Pannoniae 3y ago

The OSI's definition is not like a heavenly authority. It's not a trademark, so I can call something "open source" even if I put it in the license file that you aren't allowed to use it if you are a red panda. (which is usage discrimination) What OSI says and what I am allowed to call open source are not the same things.