RE: Petition to Demand Steem be made fully Open Source
I am of the opinion that decentralization and free choice is a must. It's the foundation upon which Steem was built on which is why I would also want to unleash its value to anyone's contribution by having it open.
On the other hand, one of Steem's main characteristics is the Witness model.
In an ideal situation, the Witness model should rule out the existence of a licence because whatever is good for Steem will be adopted in a transparent and decentralized way and also implemented. So basically, if someone wants to fork Steem, they could propose the improvement and get it implemented in Steem itself, therefore making the entire ecosystem better for everyone.
Now, I know that the reality doesn't currently match the ideal and purposed way of the Witness model, but that doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Long term and with a working Witness panel, Steem is open to anyone's improvement, off course validated by the vote and acceptance of its community.
not Dan's....
he's off the Steemit Inc. payroll but that doesn't mean he'll be completely out of everything that's happening. I doubt you can exit completely from something that you've done with so much passion.
If you read his comments, seems like Steemit, Inc. and Dan want to part ways...
Look at it this way: Dan left BTS to start Steem even though there's a lot of BTS' logic in Steem. The improvements in Steem could help BTS.
Now he's leaving Steem to pursue new opportunities, that most likely will incorporate and build upon the Steem logic. In the end, the upgraded Steem improvements might be useful to be implemented in Steem.
Like I said, there isn't anything to prove that his work going forward could not be helpful to Steem especially as the model is something he's refined over the years to reach his life goal and vision.
Perhaps...but doesn't seem like he's going to be working on any type of social media platform in the future.
Hehe...or there is something more to the story. lol...
Well that's Dan's answer from himself. At least I assume that is him leaving the comments...
Darn you @officialfuzzy! I know you know! :P
I've been meaning to have a chat with you.
But yes I'm sure there's more to the story.
give us the scoop :D if it has to be I will sign a NDA :D
This is exactly what we have now. Anyone can modify the code in any way they wish, and run it on the main chain produced by the witnesses.
That's how it works now. You can fork the repo all you want, and if the witnesses (who are of course decided by the stakeholders) run it, you're good to go, without the involvement of any central authority.
Can you give us an example of what you think would be in violation of the clause and why we shouldn't be allowed to do that?
The Steem logo up there in the top left is public domain. If anyone can reuse the code on any other chain, someone could start a brand new blockchain unrelated to our community with the same logo, call it something defamatory or confusingly similar, and dilute the market and cause significant confusion/uncertainty. It's a protection against clones, not forks (of the actual witness-defined Steem Blockchain).
It's important that any improvements and updates on this codebase go into this community that built the base, don't you think? It's sort of like the AGPL in that sense, in my opinion. If you make changes, you have to return those changes to the community that provided you the opportunity. The community is the collected stakeholders of STEEM.
If you like AGPL so much, then switch to that. Problem solved.
Returning improvements is totally fair. Restricting people's ability to use the code as they see fit (and that includes with a different chain) makes the code less useful and discourages people from wanting to work on it or be involved with it.
Make the Steem logo and and the brand a registered trademark. That would prevent anyone from using your brand as theirs. The logo itself could remain in public domain (license) and be a registered trademark at the same time.
@sneak what is the harm in removing it and declaring STEEM officially open source then? I am all for it.
Showing those quotes from my comment might make one think I disagree but that is what I'm also saying, that the current conditions are met by the chain logic for decentralization and change openness.
With that in mind indeed the question is: "Why is there a specific need of a licence?". Yes the Steem(it) logo and website can be claimed as IP, but is there really a need of a licence agreement and limitation for the Steem blockchain technology? Who is the holder of the Steem chain licence? Steemit Inc. or the Witnesses or the stakeholders(Steem-holders)?
We also have to agree that even though the conditions are met in the code, the reality is that the stake is unbalanced and we aren't there in terms of decentralization. If the licence for the Steem blockchain is in the hands of the stakeholders and witnesses, then currently Steemit Inc. is the owner and beneficiary of the licence.
All in all, this whole licence thing might have been put in place way ahead of it's time and maybe out of fear that Dan could have built a spin-off that responded to a certain crowd's wishes.