#i2p-dev (irc2p) | 2.7.0-2

not_bob Is i2p more unstable than usual?

weko not_bob_1fk: yes

zzz would it be worth it to compile an additional list of routers to ban in the release? e.g. Yh~y~dXoUyqZaPU-gei38lsyn6nMli93gkfPR8bQmrQ= ? or waste of time?

dr|z3d maybe just throttle L tier routers sooner, zzz, so you don't have to maintain a list.

zzz so far I see periodic bursts from various routers, but nothing sustained like our two friends

dr|z3d I'm temp banning L tier routers if they make more than 5 requests in 220 seconds. seems to be working well enough.

dr|z3d gitlab.com/i2pplus/I2P.Plus/-/commit/8691b01dfd9eaba6256e8a40a437fcbdc366d1c2

zzz interesting. I don't know if I want to do all that in the throttler

zzz I'm also wary of making broad changes that could make the congestion worse

zzz I'm pretty risk-averse at this point

dr|z3d understandable.

dr|z3d having L tier temp banning in play for a few days now, the hit rate is pretty low.

dr|z3d at a rough guess, ~30 temp bans per hour on one router.

dr|z3d at the other end, the relaxed throttle for O,P,X means I'm very rarely seeing those tier routers throttled.

zzz another topic:

zzz dark theme graphs

zzz we have CSS filter: invert(1); mix-blend-mode: lighten

zzz I'd say the results are ok but could be better, esp. the text

zzz you have anything better in cannon?

dr|z3d yeah. custom palettes.

zzz in the CSS or the image generation?

dr|z3d 3 iirc.

zzz ?

zzz I think for better results I would want to change the colors in SummaryRenderer based on theme, rather than post-render CSS tweaks

dr|z3d at the rrd4j end of the deal. css filter hackers are just that. hacks.

zzz that would also make image save-as get you what you would expect

dr|z3d exactly.

zzz ok so that's what cannon is doing in SummaryRenderer now?

zzz the green-on-black part. tunnel chart you sent me, was that dark or midnight?

lbt Hey :) Quick question: Is there actually still a need for more reseeds?

zzz sure, network is growing, and who knows if a current one might vanish

lbt Ok, I'll look into it and get back to you about it then.

dr|z3d green on black is our dark theme.

dr|z3d 12K known peers is plenty.

dr|z3d actually, it's green on a semi-transparent background, the black was added in gimp.

zzz you more proud of the dark or midnight graphs, if I were to pick one to buy back?

dr|z3d neither will suit your purposes, you want to customize the colors according to your dark theme.

zzz ok. the green seems a little much. guess I'll try both

dr|z3d add a placeholder box in the sidebar, fill it with whatever you think will make a good graph color, tweak until it looks ok. that's what I'd do in your situation.

dr|z3d if it looks good in the sidebar, it'll do just fine as a standalone palette.

dr|z3d the graph axis and secondary graph color (bandwidth line) should complement the primary color choice. for complimentary colors, I find w3schools.com/colors/colors_picker.asp is often useful.. allows you to pick shades of the main color.

lbt What's the status on the reseed policy draft there is on the forums? According to it IP logging of any kind needs to be disabled, is that what I should look into doing then?

lbt And zzz.i2p/files/RESEED-POLICY.md is a dead link in zzz.i2p/topics/2912-reseed-policy-draft btw

zzz i2p-projekt.i2p/en/get-involved/guides/reseed

lbt I'm aware of that, but the policy is not included there yet - neither is ipv6 I think

zzz logging is not prohibited, but keep it to yourself

zzz see Privacy Policy section

zzz dr|z3d, what does CSS img:not(old) do?

dr|z3d ensures css3 support.

zzz ok

zzz dark looks pretty good, only needs some minor tweaks to my eye

zzz but basically it's green instead of brown graphs

zzz want to review a screenshot?

ReturningNovice that'd be lovely. :)

zzz "I2P+ is licensed under the AGPL v.3"

zzz I'm not sure if cannon can even do that legally

zzz nor do I know if it's compatible with canon

zzz if a fork relicensed to make it incompatible for buying back changes, that's kindof a dick move

zzz RN, stats.i2p/docs/darkgraphs.png

zzz however I will have to abandon the effort due to licensing issues

ReturningNovice That looks nice. dr|z3d should be happy with attribution in code comments or docs. (IMHO)

ReturningNovice isn't this a dick move free zone?

ReturningNovice ;)

ReturningNovice afterall, your deep understanding of the code is proprietary in a sense, and you share it freely.

zzz based on quick research, the Plus license of AGPL v3 is a) not legal for GPLv2-only code in canon and b) a dick move as we can't take anything back

dr|z3d it's AGPL unless otherwise stated. and was never intended as a "dick move" to prevent upstream usage.

zzz pretty sure you can't incorporate GPLv2-only code in a AGPLv3-licensed work

ReturningNovice amendments?

zzz noticed this long ago but didn't want to make a stink. I guess now is the time

dr|z3d well you're certainly making a stink.

ReturningNovice ;)

ReturningNovice air things out before the new year starts. :)

zzz almost all of canon code is either PD or GPL v2 with "any later version", so you can take it, we just can't take anything back

dr|z3d just work on the assumption that anything already licensed remains under the same license. I won't sue you.

zzz however there are numerous GPLv2-only dependencies, which are your problem not mine

ReturningNovice what about a one liner amendment such as; all code herein is exempted for use by cannon (upstream? downstream?)

zzz I get it you weren't trying to be a dick but it's an awkward situation

zzz I'll have to research if it's even possible for cannon to grant canon a special license or exception

ReturningNovice if there's conflicts wouldn't those invalidate the licesnce anyway?

dr|z3d afaik, author of license can vary license as they see fit.

zzz in theory, cannon's rights to use any GPLv2-only code is terminated upon violation. GPLv2 par. 4

dr|z3d that's assuming a violation. like I said, where a pre-existing license exists, code exists under that license. if someone's going to hunt me down for license violations, let's go :)

ReturningNovice heheh

zzz just saying, AGPLv3 was a poor choice at best, a violation at worst

dr|z3d maybe, or maybe this is all just a storm in a teacup. what I've written in the legal help section is the following:

dr|z3d > The Router Console and web application themes, in addition to the overall user experience, are courtesy of dr|z3d, licensed under the Affero GPLv3. The custom I2PSnark graphics supplied with I2P+, and the itoopie+ logo are not licensed for reuse unless explicit permission is granted, and are currently an I2P+ exclusive (the Fugue icon set is used under a Creative Commons v3 license).

dr|z3d > For a more extensive list of licenses in use, see the license document. For details on other applications available, as well as their licenses, please see the license policy. Additional licenses can be found in the licenses sub-directory of your I2P installation.

zzz agreed your chance of getting found and sued by a GPLv2 dependency is zero

ReturningNovice so an explicit exemption for cannon to use specified parts should fix, no?

zzz inside canon code itself, susimail and susidns are GPLv2-only and so you're violating the licensing on canon's work

obscuratus From what I recall, to bring GPLv3 code into GPLv2, the original author of the GPLv3 code should re-license or dual license the code. Otherwise the GPLv2 code *BECOMES* GPLv3 code. That's the viral way GPLv3 is written (I think).

obscuratus Many GPLv2 projects (such as the linux kernel) avoid GPLv3 like the plague, due to it's viral facets.

zzz gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility

zzz GPLv2-only code cannot "become" v3

obscuratus I think that compatability matrix is in agreement with what I said. If you combine GPLv2 and GPLv3, the combined work is GPLv3 (if I'm reading that correctly).

obscuratus Yes, and GPLv2-only code cannot be combined.

not_bob I'm glad to see that it's not just me.

zzz I want to copy code under: GPLv2 only I want to license my code under: GPLv3 or later -> NO

zzz that's what cannon is doing

not_bob zzz: Thank you for the update on the forum.

obscuratus Question: Is a GPLv2 work considered GPLv2-only unless it explicitly states something like GPLv2 or later?

zzz now, to take cannon changes back, yes, we need some sort of grant, if it's possible

zzz yes obscuratus

zzz np not_bob

obscuratus I've seen it done in the linux kernel where someone will supply a patch (usually inadvertantly) under GPLv3, and they usually politely insist they resubmit their work under GPLv2. I think the original author usually has flexibility to release their work under multiple licenses.

zzz dr|z3d, re: your legal help sections, there are two problems:

zzz 1) you're vaguely defining what parts are AGPLv3

zzz 2) you can't do that because it's a combined work with GPLv2-only

dr|z3d I respectfully disagree, zzz. the susi* license explicitly permits a later version of the gpl.

dr|z3d * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

dr|z3d * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

dr|z3d * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or

dr|z3d * (at your option) any later version.

dr|z3d notwithstanding, just let me know what kind of license extension you want and I'll write it up.

obscuratus dr|z3d: Yeah, that's the thing. The GPLv2 license needs to explicitly incorporate terminology such as "either version 2 of the license, or any later version".

obscuratus I2P doesn't have that (most of it was written before people even thought about that).

obscuratus It's not inherently part of the GPLv2, it needs to be scabbed on.

dr|z3d actually, where the gpl is specified, "any later version" I've found in 2 separate sub-components, and I haven't looked hard.

dr|z3d or 3 if you count susidns and susimail as separate components. i2ptunnel also.

obscuratus An interesting problem in the context of I2P, you need the original authors permission to make those changes. We don't even know who the original authors are for some of this stuff.

dr|z3d in the absence of an explicit license, public domain is assumed.

dr|z3d still, I can't get excited about these things. send the lawyers over if you're unhappy. otherwise, like I said, I'm happy to write up a variation of the license for canon.

obscuratus It still means your code is dead to us as far as porting it back to canon I2P.

obscuratus We really shouldn't even be looking at it.

dr|z3d read what I just wrote.

zzz ok, so the only non-dependency GPLv2-only thing I see is welterde's UDP and streamr which is a trivial portion

zzz so, more or less, you're not violating i2p's licensing, just a boatload of dependencies

dr|z3d except I'm not relicensing those dependencies, existing licenses prevail.

zzz it's a combined work, so it's not legal. FYI only, not my problem

zzz but if you don't plan to rectify it, some sort of grant to upstream and its users would be the way for us to incorporate your improvements

zzz looking for the legal advice zab paid $10k for, can't find it...

zzz no luck

zzz dr|z3d, I assume the vast majority of cannon changes are by you, and others' contributions are zero or negligible?

dr|z3d fair assumption

zzz ok

zzz do you plan to relicense your project to correct the incompatibility with v2-only dependencies, or should we take you up on your offer to grant canon an exception?

dr|z3d probably the latter. I'm not persuaded what I'm doing is wrong, there's enough advice out there that suggests GPl2 to 3 is legit. So I can write up an exception and throw it into the console legal section.

zzz ok. not my problem to persuade you. I'll craft the beginning of an exception text and give it to you to refine, unless you get to it first

dr|z3d "For upstream I2P, permission is granted to use I2P+ modifications under the license of the existing code, where applicable."

dr|z3d if that's sufficient, I can push that to my legal page.

obscuratus Isn't the issue that the existing code now has the GPLv3 license?

zzz yes obscuratus but as effectively the sole copyright holder / author, he has the right to relicense or grant exceptions

zzz "License exception: I2P+ is a derived work of I2P ("upstream"). Permission is granted to upstream to incorporate I2P+ modifications under the license of the applicable upstream subsystem as specified in LICENSE.txt"

dr|z3d Sure, if you're happy with that I can make it happen.

zzz I think that's pretty close to what we'd need on canon side, but no rush if you want to mull it over or do more research to ensure your rights are protected and goals are met

dr|z3d nah, no need to mull it over. it's fine. was never my intention to frustrate buy back.

dr|z3d here's your green light: gitlab.com/i2pplus/I2P.Plus/-/merge_requests/3339/diffs?commit_id=668c2242b267a78b59d4ba671dd802e512deb33c

zzz great, thank you

ReturningNovice Σ:Ð \o/

weko What you think about I2NP extending?

zzz extending what? or how?

weko I2NP. Packet, sending on tunnel, for get some messages from tunnels's transit routers

weko For example, router shutdown message

zzz we've made I2NP changes many many times before :) i2p-projekt.i2p/spec/i2np ... write up your proposal and post it on my forum

weko Okay, nice.