I am 100% against this. As a former member of the Monero community, I know how they operate and the way they have treated us over the years is shameful. Monero has become a cult.
I came to the Zcash community after seeing the amazing team here and the hard work they’ve shown the world. The research and development that went into Halo/Orchard was funded by us and costed the team time and energy. It would not be fair to give away this work for free.
I’ve been a spectator for several years now but signed up today to weigh in on this. This license is indeed very strange and unnecessarily restrictive given it was funded by dev fund.
Why? He raises valid points that are relevant to this discussion.
There is a separate thread on this decision. Please visit that thread & add your thoughts there. This is about a exception to specific project which constantly attacks Zcash on every public platform.
If this is not the place to have this conversation, please point me in the right direction.
Monero should not be granted any “special exception” to the codebase. The licensing should be standard and non restrictive.
Searched for “license”
I’d strongly support everything produced via funding from the dev fund to be MIT licensed.
Right. Why this licensing decision was reached without any form of consulting with the community makes me seriously question my loyalty to Zcash.
You joined less than hour ago!
And your point is?
sure, that’s not the point of this discussion. Halo was announced long time ago, there was enough time given to chat about that specifically, there were arguments towards MIT licensed but in the end, I didn’t see huge community outrage because they were fine or happy with it.
Point is, you just joined the forum & questioning things when you had 1+ year to make a point until this post.
Well, anyone who supports that view (MIT licensed) would clearly be in approval of granting this, or any other exception to the current license. So put me in the “yes” camp to granting any exception.
No exceptions for monero. its all MIT licensed or nothing.
that size was small 
This thread could go on and on. We already did an informal poll. Sentiment is clear. It’s up to ECC (they are the ones most attacked throughout all these years, i would be surprised if they grant this special exception vs waiting couple of years to make it MIT license).
There is another moral problem. Everyone here should be aware that the two coins have historically developed their own aura. The developers of one of the coins weighed the risks, systematically built their product brick by brick, avoided the dark side. In another coin, most people neglected all possible moral principles, putting their own rights at the forefront, not responsibility. And today, such a gift as technology is just an irresponsible step towards encouraging bad guys in the darknet. Don’t confuse nobility with irresponsibility, please. We have a key in our hands that can be lost. And every Zcash investor can at one point turn into someone who has financed very bad things.
You seem to be implying that Zec can’t or won’t be used for things with which you morally disagree. Can shielded Zec not be used to purchase items on the darknet? Can shielded Zec not be be used to support planned parenthood or an abortion provider? Can shielded Zec not not be used to purchase weaponry? What do you know about shielded Zec transactions that makes you so sure it has never been used for “very bad things?”
Information should be free. Lets bring privacy to the world. I voted yes 
I’m hinting that if someone love the technology so much, then let he admit it and fund it by buying Zcash. Don’t blame those who have already done it, calling their foundation a stupid idea. These are two completely different approaches. “I want to be on my side, but use your product” or “I want to be part of your idea.” Very different things.