Pick license(s) for this repo.

[moul]

I generally support using Creative Commons or a similar license for no-code gems.

While I'm fond of the GnoPL for projects where we need to safeguard development time to create robust products, it's closely tied to Gno and the Gno Network, which may not suit all projects.

Therefore, my recommendation is to go with Apache2, potentially adding a term for X years of strong attribution to ensure credit is given where due.

Related with #46

[Pipello]

Would it make sense (and possible) to go with a modified version of the GnoPL? (basically more generic so we wouldn't be so tied to Gno)

[moul]

It is possible, but I believe Apache2 may be a better choice than GPLv3 as the base license for this case.

For example, Tendermint2 will be under Apache2, while Gno.land and GnoVM will be under GPLv3 (GnoPL fork).

In my opinion, Gno.land and GnoVM make more sense to enforce radical transparency and a radical FOSS ethos.

I view AtomHub (and its modules) as similar to Tendermint2, providing increased flexibility while maintaining strong protections.

I always rely on Jae's opinion for these topics because they are not widely known in this world, (ironically,) and he has more knowledge in this area.

[jaekwon]

GnoNGPL is good:

NewTendermint,LLC is better than GnuFoundation. Richard Stallman suggested that the unvaxxinated be herded up and sent to camps. I mean come on...

More seriously, we made GnoNGPL (GNO Network General Public License) (which is basically a fork of AGPL) because we also needed two things: "strong attribution (e.g. linkback from website)", and to not rely on the GNU foundation if we ever need to create updates. But if you read the (A)GPLv3/GnoNGPL terms the rights of the GNU foundation or NewTendermint,LLC are limited. We can publish new versions but the programmer (if they specify the GnoNGPL version) or the user (if the programmer didn't specify the version) decides what version they want to use, so nobody can restrict your future rights.

So in short, using the AGPLv3 (or GnoNGPLv3) or GPLv3 (or GnoGPLv3) doesn't make you depend on either the GNU Foundation, or NewTendermint,LLC. I'd like to think of NewTendermint,LLC as a tokenized foundation that can better adapt copyleft licensing needs for the blockchain.

New Tendermint LLC may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNO Network General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

It will remain copyleft, and differs to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNO Network General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Gno Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNO Network General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by New Tendermint LLC.

This gives the programmer (forker & contributors) and users more options; we can't restrict their existing rights.

NOTE: We can still import any GPL or Apache2 or MIT or whatever licenses in here.

---

Need for Strong attribution:

In the very least, if you're (the figurative "you") going to fork this repo to create your chain, your chain had better link back to AtomOne and give proper attribution where users can see it, in the header or footer in the most prominent way. In the very least, when the website is regarding the genesis of your project, or that's the phase of the project you're in, or if it's in your whitepaper. Otherwise, you are just stealing from our collective ideas. This "strong attribution" term along with the GnoNGPL will help AtomOne and the greater ecosystem against frauds.

With GnoNGPL we can also figure out appropriate strong attribution terms that require split/child chains to properly register themselves and better create common interfaces. Build the (genesis) rails and prescribe the course.

I recommend everyone use GnoNGPL for now, and GnoNGPLv4 will be more complete, early next year. v3 is a work in progress.

---

Also,

Also, you know who benefits from Apache2?
The companies that all colluded to vaccinate you against your will.
We need to defend humans against the corporate and ai machines.
Richard Stallman was right.
Of course security service providers will need Apache2
and validators too. But here we are dealing with genesis.

[moul]

Okay, understood.

Regarding Apache2, I fail to see who would benefit from it on Genesis alone. If this repository begins to receive code contributions, I recommend reconsidering whether this license is still the most suitable option.

[jaekwon]

I suggest we make this entire repo GnoNGPL, so that any code contribution that goes in here is GnoNGPL, and this repo is a self-contained reproducing viral copyleft genesis toolkit.
If it can't be GnoNGPL, we can leave it outside this repository and link to it.

[moul]

Perfect!

[jaekwon]

Ok closing this. If there are any issues or objections or questions anyone can re-open.