I made a new software license that is is designed to align with the principles and standards set forth by The Venus Project

Most open-source licenses allow certain things that can be abused, such as dual licensing, and do not work for a Resource-Based Economy. However, my 10 clause license can solve these issues.

The updated license and Readme is here.

The license is as follows:

The RBE Software License

Version 1.0


This license is designed to align with the principles and standards set forth by The Venus Project (TVP) and promote the development of software that supports a Resource-Based Economy (RBE). You can freely use, modify, and distribute software licensed under these terms and conditions outlined herein.

License Terms:

  1. Attribution:

    • When using or distributing software under this license, you must provide appropriate attribution to acknowledge the base software used. At a minimum, this should include a link to the original source.
    • Attribution helps maintain transparency and facilitates the sharing of knowledge within the community.
  2. Non-Commercial Use:

    • Selling or engaging in any form of monetary exchange, barter, or servitude related to the software is strictly prohibited.
    • This restriction aligns with the principles of an RBE, where the focus is on resource allocation and access rather than monetary gain.
  3. Open Code:

    • All software distributed under this license must be open code, allowing for modification and improvement by individuals for the benefit of the community.
    • Proprietary copies of the software are not permitted, as they can hinder collaborative design and development.
  4. Same License:

    • Any derivative works or modifications of the software must also be licensed under this agreement.
    • This provision ensures that the principles of the RBE and TVP are upheld throughout the software ecosystem.
  5. Usefulness:

    • All software developed or distributed under this license should be useful for every target user.
    • Developement that benefits only the few at the expense of others is not allowed.
  6. Free Community Support:

    • Access to community support for the software should be provided to all individuals free of charge.
    • This fosters inclusivity and ensures that everyone can benefit from the collective knowledge and expertise within the RBE community.
  7. Prohibition of Other Licensing:

    • Premiums, exclusives, and other discriminatory practices that create barriers to access or favor certain individuals or entities are strictly prohibited.
    • The software should be available to all on equal terms, without any form of discrimination.
  8. Limited Telemetry:

    • The collection of user data beyond what is necessary for feedback and improvement purposes is not allowed.
    • Minimizing telemetry ensures user privacy and prevents unnecessary data collection that may compromise the principles of the RBE.
  9. No Partnerships with Profit-Maximizing Companies:

    • Collaboration or partnerships with profit-maximizing companies that contradict the core values behind the development of the software are not permitted.
    • This provision aims to maintain the integrity and independence of the software from entities that prioritize profit over the RBE principles.
  10. Natural Incentives:

    • Material incentives, such as monetary rewards, should not be offered to individuals for their contributions to the software.
    • The motivation to contribute should stem from a genuine desire to support the development of this community.

Hi, welcome to the forum! Looks interesting! But I wonder why current open licenses were not sufficient, those are also pretty well peer reviewed in a legal sense and are recognized worldwide. Did some lawyers review this license as well?

The license I made has not been reviewed by lawyers. But, when I compared with OSI standards, this is a source-available license, not open-source.

An example of “Why current open-source licenses are insufficient” is that Firefox partnered with Google and started to invade the privacy of its users through excessive telemetry. Their Mozilla Public License does not regulate telemetry and sponsorships.

One reason to use the RBE License is that for example in any circular city proposed by The Venus Project, we need to make sure that systems cannot be modified to abuse the people in other economic systems.

A RBE has computers that manage the global distribution of resources. In a traditional license, the elite within capitalist countries can copy the software, then abuse, and they would always win by making the software exacerbate existing inequalities without them participating directly.

If the global distribution system was licensed under RBE, then abuse would be less likely to occur.

What do you mean by this exactly? And how would it compare to e.g. GPLv3? Or a Creative Commons license?

Do you have more info about this? Mozilla is at the forefront of Internet privacy, so I’m a bit surprised by this statement. Telemetry is by the way not an instant privacy issue. GDPR laws are by the way also quite strict in limiting privacy invasive behavior. Or at least, if it occurs, the company cannot be mysterious about it.

Is this license already also already used somewhere?

Please don’t feel attacked or anything like that. I just want to know if this license is just something like a statement and covers the same angles as some other licenses. Or if it has any extras to offer that isn’t covered by other licenses/regulations.

An open-source license respects the 4+ essential freedoms. The RBE License places additional restrictions, extras and is non-commercial, therefore, it cannot be officially considered open-source.

Firefox is not a privacy-focused browser as they promise, because it has a lot of anti-features, some of which are hard to disable. Aditionally, Google funds Firefox, which can be considered a partnership with a profit-maximizing companies that contradicts the core values of privacy and internet health.

The RBE License is not used in any repository.

Most projects require operating in any type of economy, and this license works better for more complex code within post-scarcity, no-money economies.

They tested Firefox 52.5, which is from 2017. And even then, telemetry isn’t privacy invasive by definition. Data can be collected in such a way that profiling isn’t possible, which is where privacy becomes an issue.

2017 was indeed a year where Google paid Mozilla for setting their default search engine in Firefox. I prefer DDG, but Google is still superior. Even when Google is not my default search engine, when I do use Google, Mozilla gets paid. Seems like a fair deal to me and doesn’t defeat Mozilla’s goal.

Since 2017 they indeed do want to free themselves from parties like Google. By setting up their own services, like Pocket. Which this article also tries a bit too hard to make it evil. A service like Pocket needs to use some data to function, as the article itself also highlights. Then it also makes sense to do market research, by e.g. pixel tracking. I don’t know if this is still happening. But it’s all about how and what information is gathered. This can still be done in a privacy preserving way.

Google also funds the Apache and Linux project, just to name a few. They also fund GNOME and many others. Some Linux distros also do telemetry, such as Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora. As far as I know they all do this in a privacy preserving way. Just because these things happen doesn’t mean we should boycot them. Pick your battles I would say :slight_smile:

Anyway, this is a bit off topic as well. The topic is not about Firefox. I still don’t really see how this license may add something to a project when there are already many proven licenses and legislation out there. And if it’s meant for a post-scarcity society, then these licenses kind of become obsolete as well. Because what would be the point in such a society? There would be no profit to gain to profile people in a commercial way.

Again, please don’t see it as criticism, I just want to understand what your aim is here and how it would benefit TZM or the transition towards an RBE. If people would use this license and then suddenly their code is hijacked because this license isn’t that tightly defined, then that is not great. That’s why I still wonder if this license is more like a label to show your support for an RBE rather than really something that would help people.

Maybe this license is wrong. In a post-scarcity society there would be no reason to:

  • Hide inner workings (close source)
  • Develop in a way that benefits the few
  • Reduce community support
  • Make premiums
  • Partner with parties who want to maintain their own interest
  • Materially reward people

If there is a participatory democracy in development, there would be no need to impose 7/10 clauses.

The reason why I made this license is because I was concerned about defective designs and poor practices being done by for-power parties.

But now I know that there are communities that use current open-source licensing and are not prone to planned bad design because there are people want to make things of the best quality.

A better thing is A copyright scheme that never leads to exclusivity, a way of preventing exclusive ownership.

In a Resource-Based Economy, we can use parts this system to ensure that inventions can be implemented easily.

I hope we get there one day. For that we need more mass awareness about such a possible future. At the moment we seem to be sleepwalking into a collapse.