Educational Content

[fabian]

the reasons why DCOs were not chosen were already given above by Thomas.. it also doesn't prevent projects being stuck on a license they no longer want to have, because contributors from 10 years ago cannot agree to such a change, because they are no longer available/reachable for one reason or another. the only other way to avoid this issue is to not allow external contributions.

you always have the freedom to fork if at some hypothetical point in the future Proxmox the company makes a choice you don't like. and you are free to not contribute if you don't like our choice of CLA terms, just like you are free to not contribute to permissively-licensed projects if you dislike those licenses. nobody forces you to do anything.

 

[esi_y]

the reasons why DCOs were not chosen were already given above by Thomas.

That's fine, but the license is not equivalent, also some would consider it higher barrier to entry.

it also doesn't prevent projects being stuck on a license they no longer want to have

So this was my point, I think it's also reasonable to be willing to provide only contribution for free if they are guaranteed to stay the said license.

you always have the freedom to fork if at some hypothetical point in the future Proxmox the company makes a choice you don't like

Yes but I do not want to contribute to something that some commercial entity will then build their solution on, proprietary. Just an example. I think it's a reasonable stance.

and you are free to not contribute if you don't like our choice of CLA terms

Proxmox could also state that you have the choice to relicense to other free license, not any license.

just like you are free to not contribute to permissively-licensed projects if you dislike those licenses.

That's correct, but Proxmox is virtue signalling with AGPL, not a permissive license.

nobody forces you to do anything.

So those were my answers I was after. Thanks.

 

[esi_y]

One last thing ...

contributors from 10 years ago cannot agree to such a change, because they are no longer available/reachable for one reason or another

Licenses do NOT have to be perpetual either.

Finally, I will just cross-link it to my original thread:
https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/contributor-license-agreement-agpl.153198/

I do not say you are going to re-license, but my whole point here was, that you may.

Proxmox is a commercial entity, so (with regards to the OP of this thread): people should consider working for free wisely.

 

[t.lamprecht]

that you may

As stated multiple times, and it doesn't get wrong just because you choose to ignore it, the CLA ensures exactly that any contribution will permanently stay available with the terms of the original license.

That's correct, but Proxmox is virtue signalling with AGPL, not a permissive license.

Did you really just accused a company that releases its main Project as 100% FLOSS since its beginning, i.e., since over 16 years, as virtue-signalling?!
And while doing that, did you also just mudsling the AGPLv3, which, together with the GPLv3 one of the most copy-left licenses in the world, one that goes way and beyond to ensure software and downstream contributions cannot be locked in by proprietary (service) providers?!

This is a serious allegation and defamation we do not take. Your behavior continues to be toxic and in bad-faith since almost a year now, and this behavior is not only not welcome here, it's against our rules.

After countless hours wasted on defusing such baseless allegations stemming from various misunderstandings and, at best, superficial knowledge, by Proxmox staff and other community members, and telling you to that this won't fly and work on that behavior multiple times, from nicer to less nice at recent times once the first approach did not bear any fruit, and that also from both Proxmox staff and other community members.

It's simply enough. Use this forum for community support related to proxmox projects, i.e., what the title of every page states and stop derailing every thread to absurdity.

This is your final warning, if your behavior doesn't change immediately we will exclude you from all our channels.

 

[esi_y]

Dear Thomas, first of all, you absolutely do not have to take any technical measures to "exclude me", all it takes is to let me know that you do not wish me to contribute any further and I will refrain from doing so.

I am not sure why exactly this thread elicited this hostile reaction, but I will try to reply factually. After all, I am accused of being an accuser in a thread where I stated multiple times that e.g. I do not know why you chose that license and that I am not implying you intend to use it to your commercial benefit.

As stated multiple times, and it doesn't get wrong just because you choose to ignore it, the CLA ensures exactly that any contribution will permanently stay available with the terms of the original license.

This is a void argument in this context, as mentioned above I am well aware that my contribution stays AGPL. Not because your license guarantees it explicitly (it does not harm that it does), but because the license is NON-EXCLUSIVE and does NOT ask for copyright assignment (the better of the two versions, also stated by me above). But that also means I can ALWAYS do what I want with my code (and keep licensing it out in whatever same or other license out myself). This, however, guarantees me NOTHING ADDITIONAL, when I place my code on github and mark it AGPL, it is already the same situation.

Did you really just accused a company that releases its main Project as 100% FLOSS since its beginning, i.e., since over 16 years, as virtue-signalling?!

I am sorry you took this use of one expression as accusing Proxmox of anything. Proxmox is FLOSS, but your current license ALLOWS to re-license. This is not me saying, this is @fabian in his statement confirming the same understanding:

it also doesn't prevent projects being stuck on a license they no longer want to have

You license could guarantee that any such re-licensing would be only to another free license, but this is not the case, today. I understand it is not your bespoke LA, but that's what the template says.

Quoting the said (emphasis mine) again as @fabian did:

2.3. Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license
the Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
licenses which We are using for the Material on the
Submission Date.

Interpreting the above in the good faith, I can only conclude you never intend to exercise those rights granted by the said license.

 

[esi_y]

In a nutshell, legal principle-wise:

If you were to face a landlord with tenancy agreement template where the clause concerning the deposit says that either:

a) the landlord can deduct any actual damages caused or monies owed from the deposit of yours; or

b) the landlord can deduct any amount from the deposit at their own discretion.

Which one would you have trouble with?

 

[t.lamprecht]

You license could guarantee that any such re-licensing would be only to another free license, but this is not the case, today. I understand it is not your bespoke LA, but that's what the template says.

But if you continue to read, then you would have noticed that even if we hypothetically did exercise that right, it does guarantee the original license stays, like Fabian and I told you many times, i.e., emphasis mine:

2.3. Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material,
We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses.
As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also license the Contribution under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using for the Material on the Submission Date.

But it stays hopeless with you.

 

[t.lamprecht]

Which one would you have trouble with?

The one that this is a straw man that has nothing to do with our license or the CLA.

Also, the fact that this alleges again that we're taking some value from you or anybody else, or took a public good and transformed it into something proprietary. While in fact it's the exact opposite, we release three big, and a lot of smaller ones, projects as 100% FLOSS for free to use for everybody and build upon; but for some people it will never be enough.

 

[esi_y]

But if you continue to read, then you would have noticed that even if we hypothetically did exercise that right, it does guarantee the original license stays, like Fabian and I told you many times, i.e., emphasis mine:

Added emphasis mine:

2.3. Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material,
We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses.
As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also license the Contribution under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using for the Material on the Submission Date.

There's two keywords there :

1) "also" - to also license = in addition to the (potentially new) chosen license (you e.g. license out to commercial entity that wants it closed source further for themselves, these are the options including "commercial, or proprietary licenses";

2) "Contribution" - you also keep licensing my partial piece of work (not the Material, i.e. the whole work) as was the original license (i.e. AGPL).

So as per my point above, this is nice, but also does not really concern the re-licensing with EXPLICITLY STATED commercial + proprietary licenses.

The one that this is a straw man that has nothing to do with our license or the CLA.

You have a discretion whichever license to choose from to re-license, it is NOT limited to free licenses only.

Also, the fact that this alleges again that we're taking some value from you or anybody else, or took a public good and transformed it into something proprietary.

No, first of all, this is NOT about money. You can (from my standpoint completely legitimately) charge some commercial entity for providing the package, but if they are not forced to also keep the sources open do the same further down (i.e. you license out to them other than with free license), then I do not want that to be done with my contribution. This is reasonable, isn't it?

While in fact it's the exact opposite, we release three big, and a lot of smaller ones, projects as 100% FLOSS for free to use for everybody and build upon; but for some people it will never be enough.

Yes and the part you called "straw man" was meant to demonstrate that even if I know my landlord is not a con artist and has demonstrated so, if he came with such legal agreement, I would politely ask them to correct it.

 

[waltar]

Guys, so please stop this hard arguing which doesn't help anyone nor do unluckily exclude warnings or even harder please. We're all here because Proxmox-VE is actually a great product and that's why we like to use it, privately and for testing it is license-free and a support license is available for productive use, as well as the great community here, who are all happy to help or try to help if something doesn't work as expected or known. Even if some methods, especially storage, are prioritized in terms of use, you can integrate almost any storage more or less easily and it still works, where else does that happen? Different views on bugs, functionality or non-functionality often lay outside in the kernel etc. and you have to accept that, although it's OK to point something out and find workarounds, because the kernel etc. developers don't base their work on PVE either. So have fun all together in the chats and be happy if you can help others with your expertise. Thanks to and for all.

 

[esi_y]

I really did not mean anything bad by this or my original piece (asking about AGPL), I never thought THIS topic in particular will become contentious. I understand the word "virtue-signalling" might have been inflammatory, but to the, the virtues:

Also, the fact that this alleges again that we're taking some value from you or anybody else, or took a public good and transformed it into something proprietary. While in fact it's the exact opposite, we release three big, and a lot of smaller ones, projects as 100% FLOSS for free to use for everybody and build upon; but for some people it will never be enough.

... are in the track record, I understand that. But I really picked up on the CLA because if re-licensing is possible to proprietary + free, it can happen that my code ends up with some commercial entity (not Proxmox) that further down goes building non-free (nothing to do with money) packages.

You can charge for AGPL licensed packages already, I am glad to contribute to that, you get the earnings for the whole thing (Material), this is not about greed. This is about derived works (of 3rd parties) staying open source.

I never suggested the CLA has this sneakily in, but it is a legal difference and I always look at these when projects do not use DCOs - simply because it's when the actual text of the license matters to me. I can imagine I am the first one to pick this apart, but this is how I am used to look at contributing.

 

[esi_y]

@martin @dietmar @t.lamprecht I wonder, after the "discussion" last week, is there actual interest at Proxmox to change the status quo?

=> License AGPL out, but also AGPL in?

This is not DCO vs CLA (as in form) topic, this is the CLA != AGPL equivalent from contributor to Proxmox.

When I look at some non-commercial alternatives to Proxmox VE that are also open source [1abc], they all do DCOs, i.e. they license IN the same way they license OUT.

As is well known, if anyone is a licensing something to others in AGPL, they do this since they:

a) want to make sure that any derived works will stay free; or
b) know that commercial entities will dread this and come back asking for a separate commercial license.

There's no issue with either of that if all one is licensing out is own work and acting in their own commercial interest, it is also entirely everyone's prerogative to re-license their own work or dual license it.

Proxmox, however, is encouraging unpaid contributions from others and taking the stance (a) above very vigorously (this thread above) and at the same time asks others to license their work in OTHER than AGPL license. This is a concern to any contributor.

The form of dual license that CLA enables for Proxmox is the "either-or" kind, i.e. either customer licenses AGPL or something else (i.e. not both at the same time).

It is completely impossible for a bona fide contributor to know what Proxmox does with their contributions in terms of dual licensing. This is an ethical issue and also the only time I point out the "paid" vs "unpaid" work juxtaposition, all other instances are free vs non-free as in free to modify and redistribute.

FINALLY: Having entire codebase (including from contributors) that Proxmox is at liberty to relicense to ANY license at any time makes it much more lucrative acquisition target to private equity. This is a concern to every customer, e.g. currently migrating.

As I was accused above of many things, the least of which was bringing up "FUD", I believe the easiest is to make a proper public statement on this.
This is my last attempt to bring this up publicly on Proxmox forum, I do understand you may want to censor, ignore, or ridicule it, but this is such a big non-free open source eye opener, I do not even mind if this is the last post from me here. I will simply continue talking about this publicly where I am free to do so and I will point out that Proxmox was given this opportunity to explain themselves.

[1a] https://docs.xcp-ng.org/project/contributing/
[1b] https://github.com/OpenNebula/one/wiki/Sign-your-Work
[1c] https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md

 

[esi_y]

Sorry for extra message, but just wanted to add: I give it some time before I expect some answer or even react myself, to avoid any misunderstandings.