[FOSS] Delorean - An opinionated TLS+SNI and HTTP Reverse Proxy for IPv4 to IPv6

chadsix

As a mission oriented company dedicated to decentralizing the internet using IPv6 in order to promote more freedoms [1] for people, one of the important things that we do is open source our software. This leads to more peace of mind for our users which in turn helps the business side of IPv6rs, which in turn helps to fund our development.

We open sourced our reverse proxy, delorean, which is used live on the IPv6rs network. Delorean receives HTTP or TLS traffic via IPv4 and if a suitable IPv6 for the same name is found, routes it to said IPv6 IP.

This is how we provide IPv4 ingress to our users' websites. We hope you find this free open source software useful!

[1] E.g., freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, etc.

cmeerw

Distributed under the COOLER License. Never heard of that before. Is that an Open Source licence according to the Open Source Definition and/or even approved by the OSI? To me it looks more like one of those "source available" things, but not Open Source.

yoursunny

Gotta have QUIC.
Gotta release under GPL.

LowEnd

They just don't someone to launch their same service I guess, or a big company using it without paying them;

The rights granted above do not include the right for commercial enterprises to use the Software as part of a service or product aimed at generating revenue. Such enterprises may use the Software for internal operations but must negotiate a separate license for commercial distribution or use that involves direct or indirect revenue generation.

cmeerw

@LowEnd said:
They just don't someone to launch their same service I guess, or a big company using it without paying them;

The rights granted above do not include the right for commercial enterprises to use the Software as part of a service or product aimed at generating revenue. Such enterprises may use the Software for internal operations but must negotiate a separate license for commercial distribution or use that involves direct or indirect revenue generation.

Sure, but let's not call it Open Source then. The Open Source Definition is pretty clear that the licence must not discriminate against persons or groups (or fields of endeavour).

I have no problem with them disagreeing with Open Source, but why don't say it then? Why pretend to be open sourcing something when they are not.

chadsix

This brings up an interesting discussion. The "Open Source Definition" which you refer to is some kind of standard developed by a company called the Open Source Initiative which appears to be a company located in California with large board and team. They have a worthy mission, and I definitely salute their efforts.

However, the terminology, "open source," itself is a a generic and non-owned word/phrase. It's descriptive in nature and using the term 'open source' to describe delorean is by all means accurate. The source is open. You can use it so long as you're not a commercial enterprise generating > 1m/yr, in which case, those companies if they came to us could easily discuss something. The restriction is meant to ensure that corporations give back -- ensuring funding or code contributions for open source projects for years to come.

I don't think pedantically trolling developers of small startups who actually open source all of their projects aligns with the mission to promote open source.

For us, our mission is clear, and we're going to keep doing what we do -- that is, to ensure freedoms like freedom of speech. We don't want people to live in a world where their every word is pedantically debated.

bliss

This is an interesting project, thank you.

cmeerw

Why accurately describe what you are doing (in unambiguous words) when you can use a cooler term instead (even if that term will be understood by a whole lot of people to mean something completely else). Guess that's what "opinionated" refers to (was wondering all the time about that).

chadsix

@cmeerw said:
Why accurately describe what you are doing (in unambiguous words) when you can use a cooler term instead (even if that term will be understood by a whole lot of people to mean something completely else). Guess that's what "opinionated" refers to (was wondering all the time about that).

It's pointless to respond to the first comment.

As for opinionated, it refers to the fact that it's made for IPv4->IPv6 and generally not very configurable outside of its specific use case. We are very much in love with IPv6.

skorous

@cmeerw said:
Why accurately describe what you are doing (in unambiguous words) when you can use a cooler term instead (even if that term will be understood by a whole lot of people to mean something completely else).

He said it's "open source" not "Open Source". It's a small difference but significant.

cmeerw

@skorous said:

@cmeerw said:
Why accurately describe what you are doing (in unambiguous words) when you can use a cooler term instead (even if that term will be understood by a whole lot of people to mean something completely else).

He said it's "open source" not "Open Source". It's a small difference but significant.

Well... he said "FOSS" (in the title here), "open sourced" (in the initial post), and "Open Source" (in the other thread's title) - yes, he did also say "open source" in a comment here. And then there is this COOLER (Commercial Operators Open Source License with Enterprise Restriction) licence. Sorry, but why confuse people, why not simply say "source available" (which would be a well understood term for what they do)?

chadsix

I wonder how many commercial enterprises making over 1m/yr are getting confused, other than, I hope, you. If you're not in this category this is like grammar police level stuff here.

marcopolio

@chadsix said:
For us, our mission is clear, and we're going to keep doing what we do -- that is, to ensure freedoms like freedom of speech. We don't want people to live in a world where their every word is pedantically debated.

But not freedom of speech to "pedantically debate" that you're misusing "open source" or "free open source software"

chadsix

@marcopolio said:

@chadsix said:
For us, our mission is clear, and we're going to keep doing what we do -- that is, to ensure freedoms like freedom of speech. We don't want people to live in a world where their every word is pedantically debated.

But not freedom of speech to "pedantically debate" that you're misusing "open source" or "free open source software"

Well played lol

skorous

@cmeerw said:

@skorous said:
He said it's "open source" not "Open Source". It's a small difference but significant.

Well... he said "FOSS" (in the title here), "open sourced" (in the initial post), and "Open Source" (in the other thread's title) - yes, he did also say "open source" in a comment here. And then there is this COOLER (Commercial Operators Open Source License with Enterprise Restriction) licence. Sorry, but why confuse people, why not simply say "source available" (which would be a well understood term for what they do)?

I didn't even notice the FOSS in the title. I've gotten used to seeing them as group names I guess so I just filtered it. I'll agree with you on that one though. That has a specific meaning ( at least to me ).

adly

@chadsix said:
This brings up an interesting discussion. The "Open Source Definition" which you refer to is some kind of standard developed by a company called the Open Source Initiative which appears to be a company located in California with large board and team. They have a worthy mission, and I definitely salute their efforts.

However, the terminology, "open source," itself is a a generic and non-owned word/phrase. It's descriptive in nature and using the term 'open source' to describe delorean is by all means accurate. The source is open. You can use it so long as you're not a commercial enterprise generating > 1m/yr, in which case, those companies if they came to us could easily discuss something. The restriction is meant to ensure that corporations give back -- ensuring funding or code contributions for open source projects for years to come.

I don't think pedantically trolling developers of small startups who actually open source all of their projects aligns with the mission to promote open source.

For us, our mission is clear, and we're going to keep doing what we do -- that is, to ensure freedoms like freedom of speech. We don't want people to live in a world where their every word is pedantically debated.

Your efforts to make your source code available are commendable and I’m sympathetic to the reasons for using a license that restricts direct competition.

There are other similar licences such as the Functional Software Licence used by Sentry.io, which is an eventually open source licence as the licence converts to Apache 2.0/GPL after a fixed time. Similarly, there is the Business Source Licence 1.1 which largely serves the same purpose.

However, your licence is different in that there is never a change to a genuine open source licence along with the associated rights. At best this could be described as source available/shared source with limited usage rights. Arguing about whether the licence meets the OSI definition is pointless; “open source” has a generally well understood meaning which does not include usage restrictions.

You will no doubt disagree as you appear to be strongly defending your perspective, which you have every right to do, but in my opinion you could release this without making controversial claims about it being open source and avoid the backlash.

adly

@skorous said:

@cmeerw said:
Why accurately describe what you are doing (in unambiguous words) when you can use a cooler term instead (even if that term will be understood by a whole lot of people to mean something completely else).

He said it's "open source" not "Open Source". It's a small difference but significant.

Agreed, the OSI don’t have an exclusive use of the “open source” term, but realistically there would is a fairly universal understanding of “open source” which isn’t met in this case.

skorous

@adly said:

@skorous said:

@cmeerw said:
Why accurately describe what you are doing (in unambiguous words) when you can use a cooler term instead (even if that term will be understood by a whole lot of people to mean something completely else).

He said it's "open source" not "Open Source". It's a small difference but significant.

Agreed, the OSI don’t have an exclusive use of the “open source” term, but realistically there would is a fairly universal understanding of “open source” which isn’t met in this case.

Agree: many people don't see the distinction.
Disagree: that fact is significant.
Agree: He'll have a subset of people consistently calling him out because of this.
Disagree: That he's wrong.

Dazzle

You mentioned using an Android device as a server on the web. Could you provide more details on this topic?

chadsix

Hi dazzle,

Yes! You can in fact run a lot of software on Android thanks to Termux. One of our clients published a story on Hackaday displaying his/her Android.

Once you install Termux, you'll find yourself at a terminal that is quite familiar! You can run apt commands to install and, generally, anything that busybox will let you do!

These are all features as it relates to Android.

In terms of IPv6rs specifically, we provide port forwarding which lets you run your servers on android despite the fact that most Android owners do not have root on their phones, which prevents them from binding a server to a port below 1024.

chadsix

@adly and @cmeerw - Although I disagree with the term "open source" and the validity of its usage, I don't want this to somehow misconstrue our intentions which is to be transparent and share technology with the world that helps decentralize the internet and bring more freedoms to the people.

As such, and as per your recommendations, we have re-licensed the software under the COOL license, which is a fully permissive license.

Delorean is now, without question, Free and Open Source software.

Edit:
We do think that COOLER is, well, cooler because it will help promote long term re-contribution back into open source projects and hope that rather than following some writing that one day, adly and cmeer, that you will understand that "open source" isn't something that is dictated by some 'centralized entity' but, instead, is simply a movement of the commons.

Interestingly, names, vocabulary and definitions while just created by men have, with them, great importance, and trying to re-classify things as 'source available' vs 'open source' is going to have a long term chilling effect on developments and their funding therein.

yoursunny

Mentally strong coder releases under 0BSD license.

bliss

@yoursunny said: Unable to push-up due to shoulder injury

Oh yes, my shoulder was hurt in 2021 and recurs from time to time especially in cold winter.
A warm-up before exercises may prevent that recurring.

codelock

@chadsix nothing wrong in using a restrictive licence inorder to protect your business, atleast you are setting exceptions right unlike big tech companies making a uturn after everyone starts using their software (yes looking at you elastic, mongodb , terraform)

adly

@chadsix said:
@adly and @cmeerw - Although I disagree with the term "open source" and the validity of its usage, I don't want this to somehow misconstrue our intentions which is to be transparent and share technology with the world that helps decentralize the internet and bring more freedoms to the people.

As such, and as per your recommendations, we have re-licensed the software under the COOL license, which is a fully permissive license.

Delorean is now, without question, Free and Open Source software.

Edit:
We do think that COOLER is, well, cooler because it will help promote long term re-contribution back into open source projects and hope that rather than following some writing that one day, adly and cmeer, that you will understand that "open source" isn't something that is dictated by some 'centralized entity' but, instead, is simply a movement of the commons.

Interestingly, names, vocabulary and definitions while just created by men have, with them, great importance, and trying to re-classify things as 'source available' vs 'open source' is going to have a long term chilling effect on developments and their funding therein.

Your change of licence is welcome, but I’m sorry if you got the idea that I wanted you to change it. I have zero issue with similar licences like the FSL and BUSL, and completely understand why they are used.

The objection was using the term “open source”, which clearly is controversial with restricted licences as can be seen in many communities discussing such licences (not to mention your previous licence being much more restrictive in all fairness as it never had a change date to an “open source” licence).

This whole framing of “open source” being defined by some central entity and the impact being felt for generations is frankly unhinged. I’ve already stated that I hold no weight in what the OSI defines as “open source” - I was referring to what I widely believed the meaning of “open source” to be.

Perhaps my understanding is wrong, and I’d be interested in any reasonable source backing that up as I’ve not found any that would call software with usage restrictions “open source”. But enough has been said about this here and I’ll drop out to avoid furthering this and tarnishing your generous gift to the community. ✌️

chadsix

@yoursunny said:
Gotta have QUIC.
Gotta release under GPL.

@yoursunny said:
Mentally strong coder releases under 0BSD license.

Just addressing the last item, we're not using GPL, BSD, or any of these other branded and organization-associated/linked licenses because, well, we don't want to promote or be associated with them.

We blogged about it here but the tldr for those that don't want to click is that MIT, Apache, Berkeley, etc. all have their fair share of scandals, many of which are not small in nature, and none of which that we wish to associate therewith, ever.

yoursunny

Gotta have QUIC & HTTP/3.