Bad license Apache License 2.0

Grin has a very bad license most people don’t take your cryptocurrency until you change your license to MIT

I sold my grin when I saw the license sorry

This type of Apache License 2.0 is not acceptable to the community.

1 Like

Hi @Pirat. Sorry to hear you sold all your Grin due to licensing concerns.

Do you have some specific examples of why the license is not good for the community?
And why MIT would be preferable?

1 Like

Here the differences are listed, only a small difference:

Apache 2.0 licence requires you to

  1. explicitly list out all the modifications that you’ve done in the original software, i.e., you’re required to preserve modification notices.

  2. The Apache License also states clearly that you can’t name your product in any way that hints at the product being endorsed by Apache/Grin. So you can call your product “SuperWonder Privacy coin powered by Grin” but not “Grin 2.0”.

So both are free and permitting but the Appache licence has these two additional requirements.

The main reason is that while studying MW technology, you gradually patent your developments under your license. If someone wants to use your ideas they can’t add them under their own license.

As a standard of code freedom, MIT is an ideal license, a person can do whatever they want, even change the license.

It is indeed a bit suprising, Bitcoin and most other coins are MIT licenced. Maybe there is a historic reason for chosing the Apache licence, would be nice to hit the archives or hear from older community members why this licence was chosen.

maybe thats why someone can put a malicious code ?

Malicious code and so you can put the Apache license does not guarantee safety.

Interesting to know Pirat. Yeah, would be nice to have the historical reasons for that choice for our information, even though I don’t think it is a big big deal

Uh, in what situation was Apache ever malicious?

For what is that licence ?

hmm, what about Grin++? :joy:


Grin++ has a totally different codebase (C++), so no licence problem.

I guess it could be problematic in case of an hostile fork using the same codebase for example.

Forking the original Grin codebase to Grin Classic or Grin Cash might not be allowed by the Apache licence…

Not a legal expert though.

1 Like

Presumably, the spec is covered under the license though, not just the actual code.

I don’t care though. I have better lawyers than Grin does :smirk:

So the council can sue your ass David😅, maybe that is why they opted for the Apache licence.
Maybe you are the 'historic reason’:joy:

That is also how I interpreted it. Still would be nice to hear from the council why they opted for this licence.


Igno chose it, and it’s not really possible to change the license without his approval. The license is fine though. It’s pretty standard.


AFAIK licence can be changed if you get the approval of all the contributors.

But it might effectively be difficult to get Igno approval :wink:

So looks like we are stuck with Apache Licence for a while.


Maybe he still lurks the forum… Igno… Please come back…