Abandoned: Come to a decision on the use of Value Preserving Licenses

Change log • 2024-06-26 Created initial post • 2024-07-03 Abandoned due to slash risk and Notional’s inability to access its atoms due to refusals to sign multi-signature transactions by notional shareholders. Summary The Cosmos Hub exists in a competitive global environment. Ultimately it was very healthy for the Hub and its sovereignty to begin to fund development work for the Hub, directly from the hubs community pool. If approved, this proposal would mandate the use of a different license for hub funded software. The license would allow potential users of hub funded software to make a proposal to governance, and for the community to choose whether or not proposals are accepted. Details Summary x.com @ Current State (If stakeholders vote NO) The goal of this proposal is to provide clarity on licensure. The user community is beginning to develop some sad feelings on the use of ICS for Ethos. The current state of affairs is extremely clear: • ICS is apache 2.0 licensed and our choice of apache 2.0 signals that anyone is fully free to use ICS (hub funded software) in any way they wish to, including in fully…

Excerpt (1195 of 6947 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Yes. That’s what I would vote.

Thanks for being the only respondent!

Should this be out to vote ?

I support this. We’ve been working on a license actually. I’m not totally happy with it yet which is why I haven’t posted it here. Ours uses some stuff from the BSL and the Apache licenses so it is a bit wordier than yours but the intention and mechanism is the same. What do you think? COSMOS HUB SOFTWARE LICENSE COPYRIGHT 2024 © Cosmos Hub TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 1. Definitions “License” shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by this document. “Licensor” shall mean the copyright owner or entity, individual or group of individuals authorized by the copyright owner that is granting the License. “You” (or “Your”) shall mean an individual or entity exercising permissions granted by this License. “Source” form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files. “Object” form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types.…

Excerpt (1197 of 7812 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It’s really not what I would have gone with (due to verbosity)

…but I see license-by-governance in there so I’m good with it.

What parts aren’t you satisfied with?

Part of the reason that I used MIT, is that that the license is boilerplate and you don’t need to recreate the wheel.

It is just kind of hard to read and understand IMO, but I am not a lawyer. We will come out with either some simplifications for the language or a guide on how it works for non-lawyers, and then post a prop to use this license soon.