Get to clarity on licensing and copyright

[bobsummerwill]

From @bobsummerwill on May 25, 2016 18:40

Greetings, cpp-ethereum contributors!

As you are probably aware, efforts were made in 2015 to clarify the licensing of various components within Ethereum, namely liberalizing the core to encourage the broadest possible adoption for Ethereum. We never completed that effort.

The licensing for cpp-ethereum itself has flip-flopped a few times and we aren't in a particular clear state right at the moment. To my knowledge we have never had a Contributor License Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement) as is standard on many open source projects.

The purpose of a CLA is to ensure that the guardian of a project's outputs has the necessary ownership or grants of rights over all contributions to allow them to distribute under the chosen licence.

With more and more projects looking to build on top of Ethereum, it is important that we have appropriate licensing and most important CLARITY of licensing :-)

In particular, we have an opportunity for Ethereum to become a foundational piece of Hyperledger, following Vitalik's very successful presentation to the Hyperledger Tech Steering Committee in April, but that cannot happen while we have ambiguity of licensing and copyright.

How fantastic would it be if Ethereum could become the basis of a "Linux-like-techbase for blockchain" which could be used as a de-facto standard for both public and private/consortium chains?

Anyway - first things first!

Before anything, though, I want to open the communication lines with all the contributors, so that you can be part of this process to get us to "known status". I will include you all on this issue.

If you have contributed to cpp-ethereum, please could I ask that you add yourself to the Pirate Pad below with your Github login, name and your preferred e-mail address which you can be contacted at? If you want to use a pseudonym, that is fine. I just need to be able to talk to you all for now :-)

http://piratepad.net/g9A0NTQjcI

Thanks, everyone!

SCRUB THAT!

Using the Wiki instead now - https://github.com/ethereum/webthree-umbrella/wiki/Contributors

Copied from original issue: ethereum/webthree-umbrella#530

[bobsummerwill]

@gavofyork, @chfast, @debris, @chriseth, @CJentzsch, @LefterisJP, @arkpar, @subtly, @yann300, @winsvega, @azawlocki, @LianaHus, @gluk256, @programmerTim, @caktux, @bobsummerwill, @guanqun, @giact, @cubedro, @danielhams, @obscuren, @xcthulhu, @Genoil, @onepremise, @josephyzhou, @CodeShark, @vbuterin, @msimovic, @alexvandesande, @autolycus, @jesuscript, @Mashatan, @wanderer, @SharpCoiner, @imifos, @Gustav-Simonsson, @fjl, @AronVanAmmers, @frewsxcv, @ivan1986, @nicksavers, @psalami, @jorisbontje, @bargst, @nejucomo, @austonst, @dreid93, @tymat, @EtherNinja

[bobsummerwill]

@artur-kink, @kaustavha, @dennismckinnon, @ryepdx, @pompomJuice, @larspensjo, @chulsupark, @kejace, @cdetrio, @jgabios, @eco, @heavyplayer2, @Erkan-Yilmaz, @sebilasse, @vipjeffreylee, @MelissaCole, @mquandalle, @holiman, @zelig, @programonauta, @csibbitt, @xeroc

[bobsummerwill]

From @frewsxcv on May 25, 2016 19:0

I don't have enough time to read too much about this, but I agree to license my contributions under whatever license you want (I prefer CC0).

[bobsummerwill]

And more people from after the webthree-umbrella split:
@smartbitcoin, @mancoast, @kejace, @fossilet, @zant95, @larspensjo, @gcolvin, @SharpCoiner, @rainbeam, @moneroexamples, @area, @Legogris, @redsquirrel, @VoR0220, @Denton-L, @pipermerriam, @uberlaufer, @ethers, @ssonicblue, @raineorshine, @rainbeam, @michaltrzesimiech, @4tXJ7f, @BrainArchitect, @AlwaysBCoding, @MrChico, @OlegIakovlev, @mario02423, @u2.

[bobsummerwill]

Hey @frewsxcv,
Please can you add your Github login, name and e-mail address into http://piratepad.net/g9A0NTQjcI? That's all I need for now. Thanks!

[bobsummerwill]

From @VoR0220 on May 25, 2016 20:21

I'm of the opinion (for whatever my opinion is worth) that Ethereum should stay in the MIT/GPL realm. Just my personal belief. That's all.

[bobsummerwill]

There is no real consideration of moving to anything other than mainstream OSI-approved licenses, @VoR0220.

That would either mean sticking with GPLv3 or moving to a permissive license. Originally only MIT was considered, but multiple knowledgable people have said to me .... "For the love of god, go with Apache 2.0 not MIT" because of the patent-protection clause.

[bobsummerwill]

From @LefterisJP on May 25, 2016 23:20

Those of us who worked for the foundation, signed a document regarding this at some point ... what happened to that document?

[bobsummerwill]

Ahem ... yeah, @LefterisJP.
@chriseth has been looking around the Berlin office for that paperwork, with no success so far.
Which is a bit embarrassing, isn't it? :-)
So we'll probably have to do it all again. I'm also unsure whether said paperwork ever made it out to the non-Foundation contributors. @gavofyork would know best, I suppose.

[bobsummerwill]

From @giact on May 26, 2016 7:52

I am a non-Foundation contributor, and I can confirm that in August 2015 I received and signed a permission to switch from GPL to MIT

[bobsummerwill]

Good to know, @giact. Thanks!

[bobsummerwill]

From @cubedro on May 26, 2016 8:54

me too. I signed it and sent it to Kelly Becker.

[bobsummerwill]

Closed as dupe.