Dear Crypto community,
Yesterday we saw Waltonchain release their Open Source code which resulted in huge criticism regarding the oversight of removing the original copyright to the original codebase, Ethereum Go, on which it is based.
Following this, the team have now updated the code to show the original copyright:
Github: https://github.com/WaltonChain?tab=repositories
I'd like to say thank you to the community for having such strong opinion on this matter, and for all the subreddit admins that assisted in creating clarity toward this. As a global community we should hold every blockchain up to the same standards, and I am grateful that this was shown in regard to the GNU General Public License.
Now that the issue is resolved, and since Waltonchain is currently a hot topic, I implore all the coders and devs out there to delve deep into the code to see exactly what Waltonchain have released. Not just the modification to the eth codebase, but the additional code. What does the code allow?
What we've been told as a community is that the Waltonchain source code has changes that allows for:
- Security - DASH X11 - Most cryptographic algorithms used in cryptocurrencies use only one hash function for calculation. There are 11 of them in X11, which provides a higher degree of protection against hackers and scams. Waltonchain has customised the DASH X11 hashing algorithm to fit their purpose.
- More secure than Bitcoin. The Bitcoin algorithm is SHA-256 is based on a previous secure hash algorithm family of standards, namely SHA-2, the hash functions within the X11 algorithm all successfully made it into the second-round in search for a new, more secure standard — SHA-3. Keccak, the function which won the competition and is therefore the new standard on which SHA-3 is based on, can at the very least be considered more secure that SHA-256.
- Efficiency — Waltonchain have produced ASICs with the equivalent hashing power of 200GPUs (32–40kW) whilst using only 135W, thus helping the parent chain become decentralised
- PoS aspect works
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <https://fsf.org/> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
Some devices are designed to deny users ac
... keep reading on reddit ➡what about you?
Joshua Gay is a free software and free culture activist. As the Free Software Foundation's Licensing & Compliance Manager, he works to help educate the public on free software licensing and the GPL, certify and endorse hardware products and operating systems that only use and only recommend free software, and he enforces the GNU GPL and other licenses on GNU projects for which the FSF has been assigned copyright. You can read a bit of what he and his team have been up to over the past year and what they hope to do more of in the coming year in their latest blog post: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-licensing-team-doing-even-more-in-2014
My Proof: https://status.fsf.org/notice/45178
Update: A big thank you! to everyone -- you asked some really great questions! I am off for the night, but, please feel free to email licensing@fsf.org anytime and we'll do our best to answer any questions you have!
Firstly, I live in the open source realm. I've been prototyping some ideas using various Arduino modules but now I'm interested in actually making my own boards and cost is key. I don't like being dependent on ZibBee or Z-Wave because they're not GPL compatible. What are my options?
EDIT: I guess I also need to know if the license is: on the software, the RF spectrum used, or both?
I have a question regarding MySQL Server and the GNU General Public License. I have asked over at /r/legaladvice and just wondering if anyone here might be able to help or be able to point me in the right direction
I have written and still writing a full blown accounting package that will suit a small business (1-2 users) up to a large business (50 + users), it is approximately 80% finished.
It currently uses MySQL Server version 5.1 as its database engine. I use third party components in my software that make a connection to the MySQL Server, I do not use any ODBC drivers to make a connection, I am not going to embed the MySQL Server in my Software or Installation or supply or install the MySQL Server for anyone that purchases my software, as anyone knows it is free to download and use.
From what have read my understanding is, if I do not embed the MySQL Server in my software and I simply communicate with the MySQL Server that is installed, that is transferring data to and from the server, queries, creating temporary database and tables etc.. I do not need to make my software part of the GNU/GPL and I do not have to purchase licenses.
The reason I ask this question is, I have already approached Oracle for license fees, and I would have been more to than happy to pay the $3000 per year partner fee and to purchase licenses as I sold copies of my software but they were extremely unreasonable about what they wanted me to do and how much I had to pay even before I have sold any copies of my software.
As I have spent the past few years writing this software, I do not want to make my source code available to others that can potentially call it theirs and profit from it. Also I am really just starting this venture I have very little money to do this.
This is the reason I ask this question here before even thinking getting any legal advice as it depends on the answer, if I am correct, then I will get the proper legal advice and documents to accompany my software, If I am wrong then I will have to rethink my options..
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Have there ever been any court cases, settlements, etc involving the GNU General Public License or similar?
Also, any low profile ones, maybe not involving corporations, but like, if I just took some free code, and used it in a non free app, and released it, would anyone come after me?
Also, how would that even be practically enforceable, if no one can actually see the source code?
Also, while we're at it, what are the differences between the major free licenses?
Why are some compatible with some, but not others, and why are some inter-compatible only in one direction?
Have there ever been any court cases, settlements, etc involving the GNU General Public License or similar?
Also, any low profile ones, maybe not involving corporations, but like, if I just took some free code, and used it in a non free app, and released it, would anyone come after me?
Also, how would that even be practically enforceable, if no one can actually see the source code?
Also, while we're at it, what are the differences between the major free licenses?
Why are some compatible with some, but not others, and why are some inter-compatible only in one direction?
Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <https://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the a
... keep reading on reddit ➡Have there ever been any court cases, settlements, etc involving the GNU General Public License or similar?
Also, any low profile ones, maybe not involving corporations, but like, if I just took some free code, and used it in a non free app, and released it, would anyone come after me?
Also, how would that even be practically enforceable, if no one can actually see the source code?
Also, while we're at it, what are the differences between the major free licenses?
Why are some compatible with some, but not others, and why are some inter-compatible only in one direction?
Hi All, So as the title explains. I would like to sell an application to a client. The application is based off an existing open source project that uses the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. The client is fully aware that it is based off an open source platform with custom modifications.
When reading the "COPY.TXT" license included with source code I see the following sections :
>For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
as well as
>You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
The more I read the more confused I get. Is there a ELI5 version out there? Could someone please cut the legal mumbo for my ignorant self?
Just to be clear, I want to be totally legally (and morally) compliant when selling this on.
Many thanks :)
Also, any low profile ones, maybe not involving corporations, but like, if I just took some free code, and used it in a non free app, and released it, would anyone come after me?
Also, how would that even be practically enforceable, if no one can actually see the source code?
Also, while we're at it, what are the differences between the major free licenses?
Why are some compatible with some, but not others, and why are some inter-compatible only in one direction?
