Add LICENSE/COPYING file

[comradekingu]

⚬ PROBLEM:
There is no license file to be found.

⚬ SOLUTION:
Add one in the root directory corresponding to the chosen license.

⚬ ALTERNATIVES:
AGPLv3+?

⚬ RELEVANCE / SCOPE:
Good for everyone. What other stuff is used?

⚬ "SIDE EFFECTS":
No. Unless there is no license and one has to be selected(?)

⚬ CONTEXT:
I am sort of new here.

[ImprovedTube]

welcome back! @comradekingu

a draft 😁 :
https://github.com/Code4Charity/YouTube-Extension/blob/master/LICENSE

[comradekingu]

I think the AGPLv3+ does all of that, while remaining libre software. There is then no need for a "private use" clause to prevent non-private abuse happening anyway. There is a process for taking down illicit projects from the Play store and other places, ala TeamNewPipe/NewPipe#539

Would need the clause to allow publishing it on various stores though.

Then it is much easier to get the project translated on Hosted Weblate too.

[ImprovedTube]

hi :) thank you! Licensing should be thought through, thus meant to start slow/exploratively.
Even if not every detail will matter for us soon, this thread could still become interesting to others?

weblate

fair-use 👍 (additionally weblate can even be mentioned as an example in the license file)

"Personal use": Just thought of greeting readers, as of the irony, that the existence of the file can make 1000s of people click&land there randomly/uselessly(, while the fewer professional users / legal entities can navigating their eyes straight to their section)

All of Github's License-Summaries allow commercial.

Yet requesting commercial entities to ask is a good limitation for now.
They can discuss their usecase here on Github.
Assuming nobody wants to possibly help any annoying adware/spyware even if legal somehow.

Contributors: The 'cooperative stake holder'-analogy is meant to discuss the idea that, if a serious contributor / author ever feels they should received 1% of donations or be mentioned or withdraw their contribution. Why not?

Charity NGO: mentioning sourced prominently is always good? (no disadvantage).
(Hopefully Charity-status meaningfully entitles Charities, in every country, to make use of our product for free?) (for example https://www.google.com/grants/eligibility/ only seems to recognize non-profit status from ~50 countries?)

Others:
Example:
ImprovedTube is shipped with many Laptops in the californian educational system since several years. (Webstore shows ~10000 active user from the county & OS). Motivating. Synergie. It would be good, if this would be documented somehow or if they'd talk here? Maybe they would save time & costs then. We would like to add features specially for schools anyway or make an extra version tested with their OS. Or crowdfund for ImprovedTube maintenance 12/6/360, ... , ...

---

What else matters? What about: ~ "To be complete, APGL3 shall be the measure to fall back to, for everything not at all stated through our rules or 'overwritten' through them already"

[es20490446e]

@comradekingu see #810

[ImprovedTube]

hi! @es20490446e thanks, what package/distribution did you plan? 👍
We know linux. Wasn't disputing freedom/copyleft's intellectual growth hypothesis.

We dont want to legitimate/encourage for example: Copying a single feature, just to add the worst advertisments & never update it. Not a fear, just a frequent leakage/leech (harming the global experience with extensions/apps. Like spam harms email)
(also a reason to like package curation/canonization without needless redundance)

"3. Publishers:
3.3. Operating systems:
Specific packages for intented use as a whole: ........
"
🤔

[comradekingu]

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/06/13/SSPL-Not-Commons-Clause.html and the new inverse CLA initiative I can't find atm. is where development occurs in this field. AGPLv3+ remains solid though. It works.

It however gives FSF the reins on establishing AGPLv4+, and I think maintainers should be able to pick any license that is full and strong copyleft so as not to be limited there. It is hard to achieve that while respecting rights, and possibly outside of the scope of this discussion.

[ImprovedTube]

hi :) @comradekingu, looking forward (to remember new initative)

custom becomes cumbersome

yes
a standard set of optional exceptions, just like the Github summaries,
would make licenses cover a matrix of cases tho

i.e.
GNU Licence, but disallow Commercial Publishers other than operating systems
or
"Commercial Publishers, who modify our code, must keep the link to the Github Repo centered on the front screen for all users"

[es20490446e]

Community projects that have given away the right to use their software commercially, under a libre license, have grown more successful.

Because any improvement shall be shared back to them, the software can be published in many other places, and the original project kept more appealing than the spammy derivatives.

I have been involved in software projects for many years and the evidence is too obvious.

For example Super Tux Car VS The Dark Mod. They Dark Mod is a high quality better game, made by a community, but it's way less known just because their multimedia is non commercial. So they were disallowed to publish in many places, and libre software sites don't list the game.

[ImprovedTube]

yes! your point is clear, just what about the two proposed specific exclusions?

They are logically compatible - just not conventional?

ideals are a lower level standard than existing licenses are, which are not an end in itself (, which might still improve to try to cover every Project, Users, Contributors, Distributors, Maintainers, Initiators, Organisations and Companies)

1. Excluding one bad modification "Re-publishers: Do not remove / move our github link"
   this supports progress. Any disadvantage? Many projects have only 1 in a million users even knowing the source.

OR

2. Precisely excluding some spam Excluded: Commercial Re-publishers, who don't add great features AND directly profit from our work with multiple ads inside the product, drive-by-installs or spyware
   This need not affect Operating systems & other distribution sites
   (maybe historically it was argued that some distributors might have used some drive-by-installs to fund their traffic)

---

ImprovedTube right now, in practice, is a free public service for many people, who [happen to] use google webstore. [and some others distribution, however much smaller]. As said license cant be undone, so we might think and wait more.

For many projects there are very few people who volunteer/sacrifice a lot. Imagine often there are just 10 people in the world required for a specific task - and also no more who are willing to and no company who will do it. (Other projects could be crowdsourced very well but they arent yet despite of standard license 🤔)

---

btw @es20490446e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperTuxKart & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Mod the example sounds familiar. Maybe there are better examples? TuxKart is an older, multiplayer game, fun game, linux-branded-game!! - 'The dark mod' is a scary, single player game, smaller target group, but the only one that was popular since 2004

[es20490446e]

https://youtu.be/lFNlUyi9tTI

[comradekingu]

@ImprovedTube
I think asking about not removing the link is a better idea than requiring it.
It is really something to hold against anyone not doing it when they aren't required.
Similarly, there is no competitive market appeal in loading an app with ads.
Moreover you have to make a meaningful contribution to fork, since it is after all a copyright protection.
The copyright isn't shared. You can elect to include yourself in it, but not get it by default.
Name is also off limits from what I remember.

There is something to keeping it compatible, legal, and legally enforceable.

I am a SuperTuxCart contributor, but that is beside the point. Loved the Theif series, and would try TDM if it wasn't freeware.
Just don't have the patience to read into why it is only freeware.

The example of one vs. the other is interesting in the capacity of Doom 3 not being a copyleft product.
For how good TDM is, I think it would have gained even more recognition from being a libre software product.
They weren't required to, but still have a successful product.

If measured success is other parties not closing off the source code and/or loading it with ads, I think being the one product that is good and that people actually can distribute prevents that.

[ImprovedTube]

@es20490446e 👍👍👍

yes, free code is free to improve.
yes, not all people should use bad things - even if bad ones do good marketing/SEO. But many users are efficient(/lazy/rushing) or ust not going to walk any extra mile.

Not changing that. Not afraid of competition. Spammers have more / easier options than our code.
Just questioning a categorical >yes<. Wanna 'discriminate against' the worst ones among the legal ones, just to personally & legally remind them.

hi @comradekingu, maybe i should also be a SuperTuxCart contributor ^_^ Both games have the GNU code license according to wikipedia & creative commons for media

you have to make a meaningful contribution to fork,
yes, cant find it in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html today tho, where?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License
both doesnt include words contribution & fork )

"5 a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date."
in code? prominent: not very specific. code isnt prominent.
"7. Additional Terms
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material"
material != UI
"d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material"
interesting - licensors = everyone?
"e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or


[es20490446e]

Not the how but the who.

Who should be in charge of enforcing the law? Who should be in charge of keeping the Firefox add-ons web free of deceptive add-ons?

[comradekingu]

On the FF site, that would be Mozilla. On the general Internet, that gets to be a bit difficult.
In terms of breaching copyright, you are in the persons jurisdiction owning the copyright. There are some conventions for combining it, but we digress.

All it takes is for someone to steal this code, or for a contributor to say they don't want their part to be included anymore. Having a license stated with clear language for what constitutes illegal use makes it easier to operate a project, and easier to have something legally tested to use against those that don't play along.

@ImprovedTube
I forgot the word "effectively". The idea being if you want legal rights beyond those granted, you have to contribute something copyrightable. That however doesn't give you rights to other parts of what you forked, which in turn carries the license. And it grants everyone else the AGPLv3 rights to your stuff. Those rights/restrictions apply both ways.

Effectively the project stays copyleft.

Nobody is just buying stolen software though. Just selling an alternative to something that is gratis doesn't really work.
Much less is anyone doing it successfully where there are ratings. Those places are already populated by the host project.

What does happen is people donate to copylefted libre software https://liberapay.com/Remmina/

What doesn't change for others is it is still illegal to copy and distribute under wraps. What changes is it is legal to do it within the terms and then it is super easy to see anyone doing it.

No project ever gets forked effectively if it isn't being shut down, or operated by poor management, or go in the wrong direction. No worries there.

The bargain is that being able to distribute legally (which would be a change for the better for the source project), with AGPLv3 means everyone not only get to play the same game, but have to.

You can't go in a direction of adding anything useful without it being up for grabs.

[es20490446e]

See the "don't be evil" clause.

[es20490446e]

The thing is this simple: we would only be really able to package (and promote) this extension when it is under a libre license.

[ImprovedTube]

hey guys, read lines 1,2 & 24~28? https://github.com/code4charity/YouTube-Extension/blob/master/LICENSE
thanks (sorry, it seems nice to think through step by step / oppose the standards maaybe)

the thing is simple

yes! unnecessarily simple(?)
@es20490446e how would you (could we) raise active users then? by more than a few %?

The bargain is that being able to distribute legally (which would be a change for the better for the source project), with AGPLv3 means everyone not only get to play the same game, but have to.
You can't go in a direction of adding anything useful without it being up for grabs.

back to?:

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/06/13/SSPL-Not-Commons-Clause.html

---

Much less is anyone doing it successfully where there are ratings. Those places are already populated by the host project.

Logic, yet idealistic/utopic 🤔 from what we see in our context/scale

---

What does happen is people donate to copylefted libre software https://liberapay.com/Remmina/

👍
if users had some cents available automatically, for example, then we could charge muuuch more (opt-out) such as only $0.00x/week/user & work 10 times faster and fund dozens of other projects&devs... 🤔

---

gets forked effectively if it isn't being shut down, or operated by poor management, or go in the wrong direction.

doesnt apply here(/not afraid), but forks are vital, no? 🌞 if one solution can't cover every scenario or if some questions/controversies cant be solved

@comradekingu

[es20490446e]

I will give you an example of how I do it:
https://gitlab.com/es20490446e/so/-/blob/master/info/license.txt

And, on competence, that alone causes:
https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/

[ImprovedTube]

👍 read the google link before some day :D

[comradekingu]

A change in license allows distribution to more users, and facilitates adding the project for translation on Hosted Weblate.

[Maniues]

@es20490446e
I like GNU licenses and FREE-SOFTWARE, and in my opinion, ImprovedTube should use one of them, but authors have specific requirements, so they don't want to use AGPL or other licenses. I'm working on the license that will be good for ImpovedTube authors and for the most of Free Software/OpenSource community.

I will give you an example of how I do it:

So, see this, please:

Is it a good idea to use a license saying that a certain program can be used only under the latest version of the GNU GPL? (#OnlyLatestVersion)

The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users previously had.

Suppose a program was released in 2000 under “the latest GPL version”. At that time, people could have used it under GPLv2. The day we published GPLv3 in 2007, everyone would have been suddenly compelled to use it under GPLv3 instead.

Some users may not even have known about GPL version 3—but they would have been required to use it. They could have violated the program's license unintentionally just because they did not get the news. That's a bad way to treat people.

We think it is wrong to take back permissions already granted, except due to a violation. If your freedom could be revoked, then it isn't really freedom. Thus, if you get a copy of a program version under one version of a license, you should always have the rights granted by that version of the license. Releasing under “GPL version N or any later version” upholds that principle.

Author: Free Software Foundation from GPL FAQ

[es20490446e]

That is a thing that I have already thoroughly considered for a long time.

In practice the old license will still apply to all the code you have published till that point, and only new versions of the software will have to comply with the new license.

Moreover since the point of creating a new license is always to prevent the use of software in ways that harms the user, for example by threatening their freedom, it makes all the sense to me that those new rules apply immediately. Same as it happens when a new law is issued.

The only real downside of that would be that if you trust The Free Software Foundation to create those rules at any given time. My guess is yes, for a simple reason: what constitutes libre software is self evident. The only divergence between people is to what extent to use libre software, not what libre software constitutes.

And the choice of license is the same: if you want all your software to be libre, or if you want to restrict it at some point.

Actually it all comes down to one belief: if you think your software would be more appreciated and monetize better by it being libre, or if you need to create artificial restrictions to get money.

[ImprovedTube]

hi guys, just connecting treads, just in case you are curious @Maniues @comradekingu @es20490446e
#922 (comment)

[Maniues]

Thanks for mentioning. I'm working on some parts of license repository and some key parts of the license (attribution for non-code such as sounds, pictures etc: link to the license instead of full text, to specify "commercial distribution" and preamble)