It seems like a pretty good license to me. I just can't host it (same as GPLv3), but in a few years it switches to an every more free license.
Is the concern simply that governments can only use it to help people?
Is the concern simply that governments can only use it to help people?
I know I can self-host even that top management layer (I think they called it "earth" or something). but they make that pretty complicated, probably on purpose.
In the end I just wrote it off in the end as something that has goals not aligned with mine. I'm going to look at Nebula (from Slack) soon. I use tinc at the moment but I wish it was more performant.
There's many options in this arena now so there's no point in sticking with something that doesn't completely fit your needs.
True. The stateless firewall is rather important to me and I haven't found that in anything else (I'll keep an eye on Nebula).
I'm not some free software zealot; I use macOS and the Creative Cloud and a bunch of other proprietary crap on a daily basis. I just don't pretend it respects my freedom. Nonfree licenses are like that.
It's not like it "switches to even more free": it is presently nonfree.
It's free for any use-case I'm concerned with. I can modify the source, self-host it, and run thousands of nodes through it if I want. All I can't do is take their work, slap my name on it, and sell it.
If that was your intent then VPNCloud is even less free. The GPL3 license means you could never host a closed-source version.
It's the AGPL that prohibits this, which is why I consider the AGPL nonfree.
The point being that any license is going to have some amount of:
> restricts the freedoms of the world to build upon, adapt, and use the software for any purpose.
It's just up to if you like the terms or not.