Replies: 6 comments 8 replies
-
just do this |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The LGPL is also the correct license for this project, from what @RikkaW has said. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Answered in #69 (comment)
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Feel like I'm missing something. Why does the app I have from the playstore contain quarantined malicious code? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Would be great if we get viper4android installation through shizuku |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Agreed for the most part with @Atemu here. Regardless of which direction you choose to take the license, it would be beneficial to everyone interested in Shizuku's capabilities if it was clarified. Would you consider this, @RikkaW ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The README states that:
Which makes this software non-open-source/unfree/proprietary according to the OSI's Open-Source Definition (violates 3.).
To avoid confusion, this part of the license text should also be put in the LICENSE file such that Github recognises the license as a custom one (which it is) rather than Apache-2.0 (which it isn't).
Shizuku being proprietary is, IMHO, a bit sad as it very likely prevents Shizuku from ever getting wide-spread adoption in the FOSS community.
I strongly believe that any project positioning itself as a "standard API" must be Open-Source rather than proprietary and I don't think I'm alone with this opinion.
On the other hand, I also very much understand the desire to prevent copy-cats and corporate profiteering which I assume the current proprietary license is meant to prevent.
For both of these issues (and a couple others aswell) there are solutions that do not require an unfree software license however:
Using a restrictive copyleft FOSS license such as the GPLv3 instead of an unrestrictive FOSS license such as MIT or Apache-2.0 prevents anyone (including soulless corporations) from creating their own product out of your software without "giving back" to you. Anything they add to their version would have to be open aswell. See the Linux kernel's success on that for instance.
Note that, while ordinarily Apache-2.0 is GPLv3-compatible and could simply be switched over, the term you added means that you require explicit approval of all contributors to change the license. It's best to do this early on in the project when the amount of contributors is still manageable.
The "proper" way to deal with copycats is to register a trademark for both the name and the logo. Anyone using "Shizuku" with its original name and icon would then require explicit approval from the trademark holder in order to use the name and/or icon in any "official" capacity in any place that has trademark laws.
See for instance the Firefox trademark. Debian has famously had to ship their Firefox without the official branding as "Iceweasel" for many years until they've come to terms with Mozilla.
A trademark also prevents other apps that aren't actually derived from Shizuku's code from posing as Shizuku because that too would violate the trademark. With the current license, an adversary could publish malware on the play store and call it "Shizuku" without any possible recourse by the project; thereby damaging the project's reputation.
Another possibility a trademark opens is the ability to grant permission to certain entities you trust (such as F-droid) to build and distribute an "official" version of Shizuku. This is not possible currently and will never be possible as long as the custom license applies to this project.
On that note: In my lay interpretation, the wording of the current license means that any store listing (including the "official" ones presented on the website) are not allowed as there is no exception. You are likely in violation of your 3rd party contributors' copyright. They probably won't sue but, technically, they could. I'd highly recommend consulting a legal expert on the matter before it comes to that.
I personally wouldn't be taking that risk; a license change might therefore be necessary anyways and, as I said, better do this sooner than later as the red tape involved only gets more, not less, over time.
Please note that IANAL and that this is written with best intentions. I want this project to succeed and I think what I described is necessary in order for that to happen.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions