Looking at the big picture here, I want to point out a big red flag:
It’s nearly two years since the TGPPL/BOSL license was introduced to the Zcash community, and nearly a decade since an earlier version was published. (Edit: actually, more than 14 years.)
It’s been looked at by countless people, many of whom are cognizant in copyright law and open-source licenses. Many of us have been using and analyzing such licenses for decades.
Yet we still don’t understand what the license means. Looking at the above thread and related ones, I see ongoing confusion, misunderstandings and new realizations on fundamental questions of BOSL’s implications.
If ECC wishes to proceed with this license, I suggest they publish an FAQ answering these basic questions. A few examples, just from the last few of days:
- I’d like to launch a fork of the Zcash chain. Will I need anyone’s permission? (Of course, I’d like to keep the MIT-licensed parts under an MIT license.)
- I have an important bug fix to the Orchard code, and I published it under BOSL. Will ECC merge it? (Oh BTW, I’m on an offline vacation for the next couple of months.)
- I’d like to use Orchard code in my GPL project, which isn’t part of Zcash per se, but in my opinion it would help the Zcash community and ZEC. Can I? How does that work if ECC gets hit by a bus?
- Some third party company wants to use BOSL code in combination with their pre-existing proprietary closed codebase. They would consider releasing their codebase or paying for a private license, but they first want to do a small pilot and get feedback, before making any commitment about their codebase. Can they?
- How is BOSL substantially better than GPLv3, or AGPLv3, or dual licensing with either? Concrete scenarios, please.