Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/fc-updates
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
Proposing a copyleft license for Snapchain We need to release Snapchain under an open source license for people to be able to use the code safely. We're proposing using GPL v3, which is a copy left license. This means that you can use, modify and redistribute it freely as long as any changes are also made public and available to all.
15 replies
9 recasts
87 reactions
Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
We've previously favored the MIT license for Farcaster repos, but Vitalik has a good argument for the use of copyleft here, which we largely agree with: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/07/07/copyleft.html
1 reply
2 recasts
37 reactions
Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
imo, for decentralized protocols, AGPL makes greater sense over GPL, given node operators typically are few, but users are typically many — GPL does not require you contribute back changes if you fork and run your own network, provided you aren't distributing the node binaries to anyone. AGPL does, which prevents a lot of the current era of abuse of open source projects.
1 reply
0 recast
16 reactions
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
I cosign @shazow.eth's retort to @vitalik.eth's (well intentioned) blog, and would vouch for MIT : https://farcaster.xyz/shazow.eth/0x6d80e52e
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Colin Charles pfp
Colin Charles
@bytebot
Hi Varun, 1. I did not realise Snapchain didn't have a license, so its a good thing to have 2. Permissive licenses are good, but you don't get the benefit of copyleft, to ensure that if people do make changes, you can also get them upstreamed 3. GPLv2/3 is probably ideal for Snapchain. Though, what are the risks someone like Amazon takes Snapchain, and runs it as a service, ala MongoDB? And they were using the AGPL, before changing to their non-OSI approved, SSPL. I know for one, MySQL would prefer if they were AGPL licensed rather than GPLv2 because Amazon makes more money on RDS MySQL than all the others combined ;) 4. I would caution against something like AGPL - even though it fits better for network stuff - since a company like Google actually says no to it. They're not the only ones. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy So if I had to personally pick, I'd go with the GPLv2/GPLv3. If people are worried about interacting with the Snapchain, i.e. if you were to provide client library interfaces, you could always LGPL those, so people can build on top of it. In fact, you'll note that MySQL were one of the first to "invent" the idea of the LGPL for client libraries + FLOSS Exception (which one can do as a copyright holder). This is how it got so widely distributed. BTW, you have a contributing section - I would recommend to ensure that you have gotten the permissions from any contributors when you do add a license. Because so far, they've been committing to copyrighted code, and well, they own the copyright ;) Any relicense also requires their permission (which is why the Linux kernel is still GPLv2) - and its pretty hard to get it with something as wide & varied as Linux. Employees of Merkle obviously do not need to give such consent, usually covered by employment contract anyway.
1 reply
2 recasts
8 reactions
0xmons ✝️ pfp
0xmons ✝️
@xmon.eth
Gplv3 is great, i use it for all my other stuff Have zero qualms I think mit is basically only making sense for super low level libs/utils If ur doing coding as meaning making and making a substantial app or protocol, then gplv3 is the way to go
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
spengrah.eth pfp
spengrah.eth
@spengrah.eth
I’m a fan, especially of the AGPLv3 flavor. Seems like a bit friendlier to networked software.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
vrypan |--o--| pfp
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
What do you want to allow, encourage and prevent? At a very high level, I think that a permissive license is better, especially for something like a social network where value comes mostly from network effects. I get the MySQL/AWS example, but really, is this a pragmatic risk? If amazon or google wanted to run something like snapchain on demand for my enterprise social network, so what? And if the license blocks them, will they just cave, or build something from scratch?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rocketman pfp
rocketman
@rocketman
⌐◨-◨
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
will pfp
will
@w
we use GPL v3 for all Splits contracts iirc
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sardius.eth pfp
sardius.eth
@sardius
need to look up more about copyleft, I feel like with legal clarity finally happening stateside, onchain IP, what defines ownership/copyrights onchain, all that is going to come back to the fore
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Gramajo pfp
Gramajo
@gramajo.eth
Depending on goals, as an fyi. As someone who has had to negotiated thousands of these. Getting a GPL software approved and used internally at another enterprise is tough. The orgs that this wouldn’t be an issue for they would need to be aligned from the go. As a consumer AGPL is noice, very ⌐◨-◨ ish imo
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Noted Debug pfp
Noted Debug
@notedebug
👍
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
nkemjika.eth pfp
nkemjika.eth
@nkemjika
What’s your take? @bytebot
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
noice pfp
noice
@noicebot
https://app.noice.so/?castHash=0x1d945ec86be71e922a7d55e6fbbdcd64c63a0be3&timestamp=1756355440467
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Andrei O. pfp
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
A permissive license might be better for greater involvement, especially that which is meant to produce commercial software. A copyleft license is better for open-source consolidation if this project becomes very popular. So this looks like a bet. At this point, it depends on whether Farcaster plans a long-term investment in the project. If the investment plan is longer than 4 years, I would pick a copyleft license. Posted the same thing on GitHub.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction