Umbrel’s license

Umbel uses PolyForm noncommercial license. They are certainly for it:

This guy from r/linux had a strong opinion against it:

How do you think about it, especially when it comes to Bitcoin?

View Reddit by exabView Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. The Bitcoin community has a lot to learn from the Linux community in terms of licenses. I have an Umbrel node, but am moving away from it for the sole reason of the license.

    My freedom and my coins are too important to be left to unclear licenses.

    Only GPL compatible licenses are acceptable IMHO.

  2. As long there is an open source alternative, I don’t mind, the do make it easy for many people and the host other application and they are helping people to participate in the network.

    Over time, due to the need for specialization and economical incentives, commercial services are bound to arise as the bitcoin network becomes complex due to adoption.

  3. anyone have any thoughts on the embassy? from start9 labs? they caught some ammo on Odell’s dispatch a few months back for not being fully FOSS. but they backed it up with their reasoning.

    looking for some thoughts

  4. > The “free software” movement began in the 1980s when UNIX, the most popular OS at the time, ended up being privatized

    This is bullshit. Never trust anybody who tries to rewrite history

    In the 1970s and early 1980s, software at universities was free by default, without lawyers and copyright licenses

    Then some system administrators at MIT needed to modify the Hewlett Packard printer control software to improve the way the print queues were managed. HP refused to provide the source code

    The Free Software Foundation and the Gnu General Public License grew out of that incident. Their decision to build a free Unix grew out of the number of Unix utilities they were developing for the FSF

    > The project soon developed into a movement based on the ideology that all software must be free — free as in free speech, not free as in free beer, and this ideology gave birth to the GPL License

    It wasn’t about free speech. Freedom is the right to modify software, not just read the source code. It’s a utilitarian concept, not ideology. There is no politics. The word “copyleft” is ironic, not political

    The rest of the justification is nothing more than the same words attempting to justify Sun’s failed restrictive Java licenses, the failed Netscape source license and various others by Microsoft and similar which attempted to restrict developers’ rights to modify code and claim ownership of volunteer developers’ work

    If you can’t modify it, it’s not free

  5. You raise an interesting question. I think the ideal of course is a GPL license.

    However if good people cannot fund themselves now in the future by using GPL they will sooner or later stop developing, or develop less than otherwise possible.

    So I think, while umbrels license is not ideal, they contribute positively to the entire node and bitcoin ecosystem. – – > the main goal is to let people run nodes so they can verify that they actually own bitcoin.

    And one will see if their license restricts their user base or their github contributions.

What do you think?

The spark of the white paper

Bitcoin news quick, insightful and fun.