17:06:32 <br-m> <rbrunner7> For better visibility, I repost what tevador posted on IRC while Matrix was down: https://github.com/tevador/polyseed/pull/24
17:07:17 <br-m> <rbrunner7> I am not well versed with such licensing stuff. Does that make our case easier? I guess yes from first positive reactions to this (also only on IRC)
17:14:57 <DataHoarder> Apache 2.0 is permissive and allows shipping in closed source including modifications, though as usual it has attribution clause (license/notice info)
17:16:38 <br-m> <jpk68:matrix.org> IIUC, adopting an Apache 2.0 dependency would mean that release binaries are legally a "combined/derivative work"
17:16:40 <br-m> <jpk68:matrix.org> So we would still have to distribute binaries with Apache license info
17:21:20 <DataHoarder[m]> They already have a LICENSE file as distributed which contains 3 different copyright entries. BSD-3-CLAUSE, MIT, and "Parts of the project are originally copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers" (no standard license claimed)
17:23:00 <DataHoarder[m]> As a nit while the project repo has a LICENSE file with copyright updated to 2024, the LICENSE file which ships still uses 2022 as copyright year.
17:23:17 <DataHoarder[m]> from checking the recent monero-gui v0.18.5.2
17:28:05 <br-m> <rbrunner7> So we add an Appache 2.0 license text to those files, update the years of course, and then we are probably good to go regarding Polyseed after that PR 24 is merged?
17:28:47 <br-m> <jpk68:matrix.org> No, for the source code, we're fine just having tevador's Apache copyright comments in the vendored/submodule'd source files.
17:29:11 <br-m> <jpk68:matrix.org> The potential issue is for release binaries, where we would have to distribute Apache license text as well, with the binaries
17:29:39 <br-m> <jpk68:matrix.org> Sorry, maybe you were referring to that?
17:29:53 <br-m> <rbrunner7> Yes, I am talking about that, the release binaries. Where we already pack a license file into ZIP files, and the GUI installer also copies one, if I remember correctly
17:31:05 <br-m> <rbrunner7> That sounds splendid
17:38:30 <br-m> <tobtoht> With the relicensing to Apache 2.0 there is no conflict with (my interpretation of) the CoC now.
17:38:34 <br-m> <tobtoht> As previously discussed, we should expose copyright notices and license info in the wallet api for downstream consumers, but this isn't a requirement for the polyseed PR since we don't do this for any third-party library currently.
17:40:06 <br-m> <jpk68:matrix.org> I am fine with this as well
17:42:27 <br-m> <rbrunner7> My sincere thanks and respect to tevador for doing this Polyseed relicensing.