Introducing a License – Consent from Existing Co-Authors Required / Einführung einer Lizenz – Zustimmung der bisherigen Co-Autoren erforderlich

[jomjol]

(Für Deutsch siehe weiter unten)

English

Hi
@haverland, @Slider0007, @nliaudat, @parhedberg, @jasaw, @CFenner, @ralf1307, @Zwer2k, @smartboart, @AngryApostrophe, @phlupp, @dockSquadron, @dkneisz, @wetneb, @rdmueller, @henrythasler, @RaHehl, @kub3let, @myxor, @slovdahl, @hex7c0, @kalwados, @cristianmitran, @amantyagiprojects, @michaeljoos72, @eltociear, @muggenhor, @LordGuilly, @jochenchrist, @bilalmirza74, @rstephan, @Innovatorcloudy, @austindrenski, @FarukhS52, @Ranjana761, @tkopczuk, @gneluka, @mad2xlc, @SURYANSH-RAI, @SkylightXD, @queeek, @Turbo87, @PLCHome, @Ayushjhawar8, @ppisljar, @toolsfactory, @mkelley88, @040medien, @joergrosenkranz, @ottk3, @yonz2, @adarazs, @Yveaux, @flooxo, @rainman110, @pfeifferch

Until now, this project had no written license. According to [Github - Licensing a repository](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository) this means following:

[..] without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. [..]

With the following exception for Github users:

[..] according to the [Terms of Service](https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service), other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository. [..]

We think it is important to have an official license for our software. Since you have contributed code to this repo, we need your agreement for this license change. Thus we kindly ask you to state in this discussion if you agree with the license change (see below). In case you do not agree, we might need to remove your code contributions!
We think that the change is good for all of us as it brings clarification.

For this reason, we have decided that if we do not receive disagreement from you within 30 days, we will consider this as implied consent.

If you do not agree or have other comments, please respond to this discussion.

Here you find the draft of the licence: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/blob/main/License-DRAFT.md

Best regards,
@jomjol, @SybexX, @CaCO3

P.S.: if you are not sure, what was your contribution to this project in the past, you can see with following link all contributors with the corresponding commits: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/graphs/contributors

---

Deutsch

Hallo [siehe oben],

Bisher hatte dieses Projekt keine schriftliche Lizenz. Laut [Repository lizenzieren](https://docs.github.com/de/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository) bedeutet das Folgendes:

[..] ohne Lizenz das standardmäßige Urheberrecht gilt – Du behältst also alle Rechte an Deinem Quellcode, und niemand darf den Code reproduzieren, verteilen oder abgeleitete Werke davon erstellen. [..]

Mit der folgenden Ausnahme für Github-Nutzer:

[..] sind gemäß den [Nutzungsbedingungen](https://docs.github.com/de/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service) andere Benutzer von GitHub.com berechtigt, dein Repository anzuzeigen und zu forken. [..]

Wir halten es für wichtig, eine offizielle Lizenz für unsere Software zu haben. Da Du Code zu diesem Repository beigetragen haben, benötigen wir Deine Zustimmung zu dieser Lizenzänderung. Daher bitten wir dich höflich, in dieser Diskussion mitzuteilen, ob Du der Lizenzänderung zustimmst (siehe unten). Falls Du nicht zustimmst, müssen wir möglicherweise deine Code-Beiträge entfernen!
Wir glauben, dass diese Änderung für uns alle vorteilhaft ist, da sie Klarheit schafft.

Aus diesem Grund haben wir beschlossen, dass wir ausbleibende Rückmeldungen innerhalb von 30 Tagen als stillschweigende Zustimmung werten.

Falls du nicht einverstanden bist oder andere Anmerkungen hast, antworte bitte in dieser Diskussion.

Hier findet ihr den Lizenzentwurf: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/blob/main/License-DRAFT.md

Eine inoffizielle, automatisch erstellte Übersetzung findest Du hier.

Beste Grüße,
@jomjol, @SybexX, @CaCO3

P.S.: Falls du dir nicht sicher bist, welchen Beitrag du in der Vergangenheit zu diesem Projekt geleistet hast, kannst du unter folgendem Link alle Mitwirkenden mit den entsprechenden Commits einsehen: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/graphs/contributors

[jomjol]

@yonz2, @adarazs, @Yveaux, @flooxo, @rainman110, @pfeifferch:

Please see above. It looks like, that due to the high number of adressants, you might not have been noticed about this discussion.

[pfeifferch]

agree

Stimme zu.

[rdmueller]

I consent

[RaHehl]

I am generally willing to agree to this license change, but could you perhaps explain a bit why you chose this license over, for example, MIT or Apache?

[jomjol]

Sure I can explain:

1. The base of this code is used by me (@jomjol) also for commercial applications, so I need an option to use it for this
2. I really want to grant free access for private purposes, and also open for forks and individual modifications
   BUT
3. There have been people in the past, who sold this code 1:1 in the internet. No modifactions, even referring to this GitHub. So making money with my and meanwhile with coauthors free hours spend in this coee.
   This is not fair from my point of view and also against the business of mine, which is also relying on this code.

So we cannot use MIT licence, cause this would allow a commercial usage.

[RaHehl]

I agree,

but I would like to point out once again that your work, which you use commercially, is also based on open-source work, and you (probably) don't pay anyone for it. Therefore, I am generally more of a supporter of the open-core model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model.

I agree with you, especially when it comes to people selling these things, as I’ve seen on eBay, for €77 each, likely without contributing significantly, whether through contributions or financial support.

Wouldn't it perhaps be more sensible to offer official and optimized hardware yourself, like https://shop.tynet.eu/ (https://github.com/Tysonpower/HCPBridgeMqtt_tynet) or https://bbqkees-electronics.nl/shop/ (https://github.com/emsesp/EMS-ESP32) ? I’m particularly thinking about the issue of lighting. I always have problems with reflections using the "standard" ESP-CAMs and their original LEDs without a diffuser.

[jomjol]

Wouldn't it perhaps be more sensible to offer official and optimized hardware yourself, like https://shop.tynet.eu/ or https://bbqkees-electronics.nl/shop/? I’m particularly thinking about the issue of lighting. I always have problems with reflections using the "standard" ESP-CAMs and their original LEDs without a diffuser.

I'm not a hardware guy, but with this licence, we might find somebody to support (that is also one of the motivations, to have a clear licence status).

Thx for you understanding and support!

[RaHehl]

Maybe you could ask the Tyson or BBQkees guy about a collaboration, they are relatively similar with their solutions and already have some experience in the design and distribution of hardware

[phlupp]

I agree

Ich stimme zu

[Slider0007]

Thanks for sharing the license. I will agree in principle as long as it is ensured that any forked code or concept cannot only be copied and used by the licensors without mentioning the originator / source. Especially in the last weeks I've seen some of my forked code samples floating around in several discussions, branches, test firmwares promoting by someone else or even directly committed without mentioning any code source...

[jomjol]

I absolutely agree; the authors of contributions should be acknowledged and given due credit within the code!

[jasaw]

I agree.

[dockSquadron]

I agree.

[gneluka]

I agree.

[bilalmirza74]

I Agree 👍

[muggenhor]

This looks like a self written license. Instead of forcing everyone that uses this to be their own legal expert (or hire one) why don't you use one of the many standard licenses from the OSI list (Open Source Initiative)? https://opensource.org/licenses?categories=popular-strong-community

we have decided that if we do not receive disagreement from you within 30 days, we will consider this as implied consent

This sentence may give people the false impression that you don't need a positive response. So you may be shooting yourself in the foot with this. As you most definitely need explicit consent here from every contributor who's contributed code you wish to keep.

And is it your intent to be "visible source" instead of "open source"? Because this license definitely doesn't adhere to the open source definition.

[jomjol]

This looks like a self written license. Instead of forcing everyone that uses this to be their own legal expert (or hire one) why don't you use one of the many standard licenses from the OSI list (Open Source Initiative)? https://opensource.org/licenses?categories=popular-strong-community
...
And is it your intent to be "visible source" instead of "open source"? Because this license definitely doesn't adhere to the open source definition.

You are right, this is a self writte licence. I need this dual licence to have an exclusive right for the commercial usage of the code.
Never the less I want to share and allow the usage of this code for private and non commercial usage.
If I would go pure open source, everybody can use this code for commercial applications also. This would be against my business of my little software company.
The current state is not well defined and we would to clear that up with this licence. Currently nobody would be allowed, even not for private purpuse. I don't like the alternatives.

This sentence may give people the false impression that you don't need a positive response. So you may be shooting yourself in the foot with this. As you most definitely need explicit consent here from every contributor who's contributed code you wish to keep.

In principle you are right. We need to discuss, once we have a major feedback

[Turbo87]

you may want to consider using e.g. https://fsl.software/ which has a sound legal basis and was created for similar purposes

[caco3]

you may want to consider using e.g. https://fsl.software/ which has a sound legal basis and was created for similar purposes

Keep in mind that we do it all in our free time. There are some minor donations, but that would not even cover the costs to run a proper test system. Also user support takes quite a lot of time. In general it means slow progress. We do not have a road map, thus we do not want to think whats happening in 2 years. We do it because we like to do it, with the time we are willing and able to invest. And we all support open source. But we do not like if people make money with our work without giving something back.

[eltociear]

I agree.

[michaeljoos72]

I agree

[joergrosenkranz]

I agree

[LordGuilly]

I agree

…

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, 21:25 jomjol, ***@***.***> wrote: (Für Deutsch siehe weiter unten) English Hi @haverland <https://github.com/haverland>, @Slider0007 <https://github.com/Slider0007>, @nliaudat <https://github.com/nliaudat>, @parhedberg <https://github.com/parhedberg>, @jasaw <https://github.com/jasaw>, @CFenner <https://github.com/CFenner>, @ralf1307 <https://github.com/ralf1307>, @Zwer2k <https://github.com/Zwer2k>, @smartboart <https://github.com/smartboart>, @AngryApostrophe <https://github.com/AngryApostrophe>, @phlupp <https://github.com/phlupp>, @dockSquadron <https://github.com/dockSquadron>, @dkneisz <https://github.com/dkneisz>, @wetneb <https://github.com/wetneb>, @rdmueller <https://github.com/rdmueller>, @henrythasler <https://github.com/henrythasler>, @RaHehl <https://github.com/RaHehl>, @kub3let <https://github.com/kub3let>, @myxor <https://github.com/myxor>, @slovdahl <https://github.com/slovdahl>, @hex7c0 <https://github.com/hex7c0>, @kalwados <https://github.com/kalwados>, @cristianmitran <https://github.com/cristianmitran>, @amantyagiprojects <https://github.com/amantyagiprojects>, @michaeljoos72 <https://github.com/michaeljoos72>, @eltociear <https://github.com/eltociear>, @muggenhor <https://github.com/muggenhor>, @LordGuilly <https://github.com/LordGuilly>, @jochenchrist <https://github.com/jochenchrist>, @bilalmirza74 <https://github.com/bilalmirza74>, @rstephan <https://github.com/rstephan>, @Innovatorcloudy <https://github.com/Innovatorcloudy>, @austindrenski <https://github.com/austindrenski>, @FarukhS52 <https://github.com/FarukhS52>, @Ranjana761 <https://github.com/Ranjana761>, @tkopczuk <https://github.com/tkopczuk>, @gneluka <https://github.com/gneluka>, @mad2xlc <https://github.com/mad2xlc>, @SURYANSH-RAI <https://github.com/SURYANSH-RAI>, @SkylightXD <https://github.com/SkylightXD>, @queeek <https://github.com/queeek>, @Turbo87 <https://github.com/Turbo87>, @PLCHome <https://github.com/PLCHome>, @Ayushjhawar8 <https://github.com/Ayushjhawar8>, @ppisljar <https://github.com/ppisljar>, @toolsfactory <https://github.com/toolsfactory>, @mkelley88 <https://github.com/mkelley88>, @040medien <https://github.com/040medien>, @joergrosenkranz <https://github.com/joergrosenkranz>, @ottk3 <https://github.com/ottk3>, @yonz2, @adarazs, @Yveaux, @flooxo, @rainman110, @pfeifferch Until now, this project had no written license. According to [Github - Licensing a repository <https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository> ]( https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository) this means following: [..] without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. [..] With the following exception for Github users: [..] according to the [Terms of Service <https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service> ]( https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service), other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository. [..] We think it is important to have an official license for our software. Since you have contributed code to this repo, we need your agreement for this license change. Thus we kindly ask you to state in this discussion if you agree with the license change (see below). In case you do not agree, we might need to remove your code contributions! We think that the change is good for all of us as it brings clarification. For this reason, we have decided that if we do not receive disagreement from you within 30 days, we will consider this as implied consent. If you do not agree or have other comments, please respond to this discussion. *Here you find the draft of the licence: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/blob/main/License-DRAFT.md <https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/blob/main/License-DRAFT.md>* Best regards, @jomjol, @SybexX, @CaCO3 P.S.: if you are not sure, what was your contribution to this project in the past, you can see with following link all contributors with the corresponding commits: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/graphs/contributors ------------------------------ Deutsch Hallo [siehe oben], Bisher hatte dieses Projekt keine schriftliche Lizenz. Laut [Repository lizenzieren <https://docs.github.com/de/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository> ]( https://docs.github.com/de/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository) bedeutet das Folgendes: [..] ohne Lizenz das standardmäßige Urheberrecht gilt – Du behältst also alle Rechte an Deinem Quellcode, und niemand darf den Code reproduzieren, verteilen oder abgeleitete Werke davon erstellen. [..] Mit der folgenden Ausnahme für Github-Nutzer: [..] sind gemäß den [Nutzungsbedingungen <https://docs.github.com/de/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service> ]( https://docs.github.com/de/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service) andere Benutzer von GitHub.com berechtigt, dein Repository anzuzeigen und zu forken. [..] Wir halten es für wichtig, eine offizielle Lizenz für unsere Software zu haben. Da Du Code zu diesem Repository beigetragen haben, benötigen wir Deine Zustimmung zu dieser Lizenzänderung. Daher bitten wir dich höflich, in dieser Diskussion mitzuteilen, ob Du der Lizenzänderung zustimmst (siehe unten). Falls Du nicht zustimmst, müssen wir möglicherweise deine Code-Beiträge entfernen! Wir glauben, dass diese Änderung für uns alle vorteilhaft ist, da sie Klarheit schafft. Aus diesem Grund haben wir beschlossen, dass wir ausbleibende Rückmeldungen innerhalb von 30 Tagen als stillschweigende Zustimmung werten. Falls du nicht einverstanden bist oder andere Anmerkungen hast, antworte bitte in dieser Diskussion. *Hier findet ihr den Lizenzentwurf: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/blob/main/License-DRAFT.md <https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/blob/main/License-DRAFT.md>* Beste Grüße, @jomjol, @SybexX, @CaCO3 P.S.: Falls du dir nicht sicher bist, welchen Beitrag du in der Vergangenheit zu diesem Projekt geleistet hast, kannst du unter folgendem Link alle Mitwirkenden mit den entsprechenden Commits einsehen: https://github.com/jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/graphs/contributors — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3483>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADFIGG4K3XWDZQIUCEPPTE32JGPNVAVCNFSM6AAAAABUUPOZDGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ERDJONRXK43TNFXW4OZXG44DENZVGY> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[henrythasler]

I agree

[Zwer2k]

I agree

[SkylightXD]

I agree

[Yveaux]

I agree 👍

[040medien]

I consent to the license change, even though I share the same concerns as @slovdahl and others here.

[hex7c0]

I agree

[fsck-block]

I agree

[jomjol]

@wetneb , @ottk3 , @Turbo87 , @SURYANSH-RAI , @mad2xlc , @tkopczuk , @Ranjana761 @austindrenski , @Innovatorcloudy , @rstephan @muggenhor @amantyagiprojects , @dkneisz , @AngryApostrophe @ralf1307 @CFenner @parhedberg

Hello everyone,

Thank you once again for your contribution to our project! As mentioned above, we would like to clarify the licensing status for everyone involved and have put together a proposal.

So far, we haven’t received any feedback from you. Based on some responses we’ve already received, we’ve decided to move away from the idea of implied consent and now require your active feedback.

Please review our license proposal and let us know briefly whether you agree with it or not. Your feedback will help us finalize an official license as quickly as possible and ensure clarity for everyone.

Thank you again for your support!

Best regards,
@jomjol

---

Deutsch

Hallo zusammen,

vielen Dank noch einmal für euren Beitrag zu unserem Projekt! Wie bereits oben erwähnt, möchten wir den Lizenzstatus für alle Beteiligten eindeutig klären und haben dazu einen Vorschlag ausgearbeitet.

Von euch haben wir hierzu bisher keine Rückmeldung erhalten. Da wir nach einigen Rückmeldungen beschlossen haben, auf die Idee einer stillschweigenden Zustimmung zu verzichten, benötigen wir nun eure aktive Rückmeldung.

Bitte prüft unseren Lizenzvorschlag und teilt uns kurz mit, ob ihr damit einverstanden seid oder nicht. Eure Rückmeldung hilft uns sehr, schnellstmöglich eine offizielle Lizenz zu finalisieren und damit für alle Klarheit zu schaffen.

Vielen Dank nochmals für eure Unterstützung!

Viele Grüße

@jomjol

[CFenner]

Ich bin einverstanden!

[mad2xlc]

ich bin einverstanden!

[Turbo87]

I agree

[ottk3]

I agree

[parhedberg]

I agree!

…

-- Pär Hedberg lör 18 jan. 2025 kl. 09:38 skrev Sven Rojek ***@***.***>:

I agree — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3483 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJDU4OX35HMGGB5ESSJHQ32LIHI5AVCNFSM6AAAAABUUPOZDGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOBXGM4TSNY> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: <jomjol/AI-on-the-edge-device/repo-discussions/3483/comments/11873997@ github.com>

[eltociear]

I agree

[AngryApostrophe]

I agree

[muggenhor]

I agree

[wetneb]

I also think it is a mistake not to take an existing license, and the interaction when I brought up the issue wasn't very pleasant. But I guess it's a step in the right direction, so fine by me.

[SybexX]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT-Lizenz

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), 
to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. 

If others can earn money with your work, this has nothing to do with protection or something ^^

Read the available licenses carefully and do not simply assume that they are correct just because many use them.

[caco3]

Thanks for your your agreement. We are working on the next release and will apply the license to it.