This is what I was afraid of. Thanks for this post.
Edit: He deleted this post, but you can read it here:
https://steemd.com/tx/3b205c4416376e13722ddea0fb26a10aa83ecfdc
This is what I was afraid of. Thanks for this post.
Edit: He deleted this post, but you can read it here:
https://steemd.com/tx/3b205c4416376e13722ddea0fb26a10aa83ecfdc
This was extracted from the raw data above, I uploaded the graphic from http s://abi-laboratory.pro/ images/opensource1.png
Not meant as disrespect (highly doubt it will be taken as such anyway) but only for posterity.
There seems to be some confusion regarding the nature of the license as discussed by @sneak and this confusion is not helping anyone involved.
Since he is posting from a personal account and not from a corporate account, such as @steemitblog, we can presume that he is wrong.
In this case it means that Steemit, Inc can block any change it wants. Steemit has also pursued patents on various aspects of the technology and has made no commitment to use said patents for defensive use only (if someone sues Steemit).
I have long stated that I believe all IP to be a government granted privilege enforced by violence and not a natural right. It was conceived to control freedom of speech and must violate freedom of speech to be enforced.
Against Intellectual Monopoly
In the past I have supported licenses under the theory that they only apply to those who believe in IP and that everyone who rejects the concept is free to use it. I have considered IP claims to be null and void among liberty minded individuals and companies.
Any company that must resort to government force to defend its "IP" is an aggressor.
At this point Steemit, Inc has launched the chain, established network effect, and has not attempted to enforce the license. Because of the license it did collect a hefty licensing fee from Golos and secured a share drop on Steem / Steemit. Should Steem continue to extort license fees from other clones or should it open up the license?
All these terms simply hold back innovation and limit our freedoms. It is time to let the code be free and make a commitment to only produce BSD or MIT licensed code going forward. I will never again write software that isn't BSD / MIT from the day I conceive it to the day it is released."
I always did think that restrictive license seemed pretty un-dannish.
I honestly never pegged @dan to be that radical so reading that it was resonating positively with me as I have argued that IP is a crime against humanity since I first reasoned it in my early twenties, it's immoral to copyright and patent and rely on violent enforcement of the state to uphold that selfishness, and both are spiraling out of control and soon are going to come to a conclusion. It's driven exclusively by greed, to monetize an idea, a concept, what good can come out of that?!
Yeah, dan is decently radical. :)
I think the voluntaryst anti-IP stance is intriguing. You have a community that, on the one hand, upholds personal property rights as inalienable. But on the other hand, they demand that intellectual property, if public, must be commonly-owned (of course, trade secrets are fine - but everybody agrees on that one). I see how both of these are logical conclusions of the non-violence principle, but they also look (from the outside) to be a bit at odds with one another. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss it, I suppose. I'll write a blog about it one day.
re: Voluntaryist approach to infinitely reproducible works (ie: IP) - enlightened consumers are free to consciously choose to support their favoured content creators.
not really. bitshares was restricted too in the beginning
Now, you are not afraid anymore because you know it! :D
Ah yes. Also can see history at https://scribe.steemian.info/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsteempeak.com%2Fsteem%2F%40dantheman%2Fmaking-steem-really-open-source
Thank you @neoxian. Very much appreciate the link.
tyvm for that link!!
Thanks for the link !👍
Thank you, was going to go looking for it 🙂