Max's avatar
Max max@towardsliberty.com 2 years ago
The @Fedi software license agreement is really bad... eCash projects should learn from the mistakes of Chaum, instead of doubling down in the same direction. It is ESSENTIAL for these tools to be FOSS. > You are not permitted to lease, rent, distribute or sublicense the Software or any rights therein. > You also may not install the Software on a network server, use the Software in a time-sharing arrangement or in any other unauthorized manner. > Further, no license is granted to you in the human readable code of the Software (source code). > You agree that you have no right, power or authority to make any modifications to or unauthorized copies of the Software. > You may reproduce and provide one (1) copy of the Software and Documentation for each device, computer or workstation on which the Software is installed. [QubesOS users go lol] > You agree not to modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of the Software or assist someone in performing such prohibited acts. > You agree not to import or export the Software or any Documentation (or any copies thereof) or any products utilizing the Software or any Documentation in violation of any applicable laws or regulations of the United States or the country to which you have imported or exported. https://www.fedi.xyz/eula-en

Replies (23)

Default avatar
nobody 2 years ago
I'm so bloody confused by this whole fedi, fedimint, cashu, nuts, almonds situation.
1 replies ↓
Default avatar
nobody 2 years ago
It's only a matter of time now before the whole nut family gets involved in this sordid affair.
niftynei() 🇺🇸💸🧡's avatar
niftynei() 🇺🇸💸🧡 2 years ago
whoa. no reverse engineering ! interesting that it expires 3mo after first use and gives you a 30day warranty
image image image
arvin's avatar
arvin vindard@blink.sv 2 years ago
I don't understand One's an independent protocol that's openly licensed, and the other's a private company building a subset of things on top of that protocol with more restrictive licenses for its products I don't necessarily agree with the more restrictive licenses even for derivative things, but I don't see how that affects the entire Fedimint project ... unless you're saying that the private company Fedi has an outsized influence on the underlying public protocol?
1 replies ↓
Leo Wandersleb's avatar
Leo Wandersleb leo@nostr.info 2 years ago
My point was that with that "license", publishing the code wouldn't change much. But then again, the coldcard apologists would probably argue it's "Open Source" if the license was "Here's the code. If you read it, we will have to shoot you on sight."
1 replies ↓
Leo Wandersleb's avatar
Leo Wandersleb leo@nostr.info 2 years ago
I had used the term "open source" quite liberally in WalletScrutiny reviews but now corrected all occurrences of "open source" to "public source" as that's what matters for my project. Apparently many international organizations agreed on using the term "open source" only if the license is approved by the "Open Source Initiative". RMS was always preferring the term FOSS to make the distinction but I think it's fair to keep it slightly briefer and go with the OSI definition. As a fan of FOSS, I'm not willing to surrender the term "open source" to projects that are not willing to grant the liberties FOSS is granting.
↑