Sunday, July 18, 2010

the good, the bad and the ugly licensing

Hello everyone,
first for the good news. Last week I sent some IP-traffic from application to pplication (and back) through a test phantom network for the first time. This is a big step for phantom I think and I am very glad I got it working so far.
The bad news is, due to private problems I have not been able to work too much in the recent time and so I have fallen behind on my schedule. Finishing my thesis in July is no longer just ambitious but turned into an impossibility during the last weeks. However I am feeling better and I am back at work. The planned schedule is about two or three more weeks of coding (I will not put too much effort in the DHT-part but concentrate mostly on improving routing path and tunnel code as well as the application interface (currently a tun device)). After that I will sit down and write the text part of my thesis - no summer vacation for me this year it seems :-(.
After that I will publish what has been done and hopefully a community will rise to take over where I have left off. For releasing the code to the public Magnus and I have been thinking about the right license but unfortunately we are both inexperienced in these things. If a noble reader of this blog feels like he can help us discuss our options or decide on a license, please feel free to contact me or Magnus.


Cane said...

Here are a comparison of licenses

Having said that. In my book, there are only one truly open license, and that is the "modified BSD License".

Anonymous said...

It's nice to read about your project, though I'm a bit disappointed about you spreading false information about similar projects, namely I2P.
Your presentation slides claim I2P is not using end-to-end encryption in all cases.
This is untrue. I2P offers e2ee from the service to the client, from the client to the service or from one peer to another. Thus all traffic is always encrypted by the sender's i2p router with the recipient's i2p destination.

Maybe you can correct that misconception in future presentations.

For your project we wish you all the best and also invite you to technical discussion and fruitful cooperation...

keitarNo said...

Basically, we need a license that is not copyleft (so commercial applications are ok) and that is GPL compatible (so fully open source stuff is ok too).
@Cane : modified BSD License fits the criteria.
I prefer "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License" : it's a mix between BSD-2 clauses & Expat, which are both ok.

Cane said...


Now that you have found a license that you like, does that mean that the project will get released soon?

ErnstlAT said...

Why not the LGPL: The point of it is to allow linking with commercial applications and yet still be GPL-compatible.

Apart from that without wanting to be pushy: Want to code, want to run Phantom! :-) When will it be available for community hacking?