Petition to Demand Steem be made fully Open Source

in steem •  3 years ago  (edited)

We the undersigned demand that Steem be made fully open source.

The condition in the Steem Licence which requires signed permission from Steemit Inc to fork must be removed. This condition is untenable for Steem long term.

If this condition is not removed by May 1st 2017, we will power down and leave the network. The Steem Network is nothing without people, without an ideological basis, and without the intellectual capital which is currently on the way out

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Competition is good.

Do you know why Facebook is still the biggest player in Social Media? There are hundreds of better implemented platform, with better functionalities... but Facebook is still the biggest, because it succeeded with onboarding people.

The most difficult thing about creating a social media platform is... creating a community and critical mass of those users.

We - community - are the reason why Steem is working. Our feedback, our activity, our work, our marketing.

If Steem will be forked, that would be actually great. Another scenarios could be tested. We could learn much faster what is working (then we could merge those features back to Steem) and learn from mistakes of other forks.

Without Dan being on-board or at least Steem being open-licenced, I will power down my STEEM. I am not sure, whether I will sell it immediately, but right now I can image that, what was impossible Yesterday, before Dan resigned.

I actually agree with you, I haven't thought of selling since everything I have is earned, but why not with all the issues seemingly increasing in magnitude, without offering true conversation and resolution.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Signed. Steemit must be fully open source. No half measures.

The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.

This must be removed.

https://github.com/steemit/steem/pull/936
Here is the github issue where @dan tried to make this change.
@sneak locked the discussion there. That speaks volumes I think.

Our comments were deleted on Github...

I agree with @sneak on this one - at least for now.

Same.

Steem is already open source, and GitHub is not the place to discuss any related nuances thereof.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Not according to any well-recognized definition.

Furthermore trying to warp the definition to fit your agenda won't solve the underlying problems with the license.

Finally, github is indeed how open source projects generally discuss issues related to the project (at least as they relate to the code itself, and that includes licenses). But perhaps you are right, it isn't the place to discuss Steem.

I agree with @sneak that Steem is open source. Open source software is not the same as free software. It sounds like @dan wants free software.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

It is correct that open source is not the same as free software. Steem is neither. See for example, clause 6 of the Open Source Definition. Steem's license discriminates against the blockchain field by prohibiting use by blockchains other than by the specific Steem blockchain. It would be similar to Apple releasing (alleged) 'open source' mobile software but prohibiting it from being used on any mobile platform except iOS. Or a mobile service provider doing the same, prohibiting the software they release from being used on phones not connected to their network. That is not open source.

What uses of the code do you wish to undertake that are prohibited by that line?

We want to be able to fork in the case of a divergence of interest between the community and Steemit Inc. We also want to be able to retain the same general rules in the case where Steemit Inc pushes through a fork which the community does not agree with. We should be able to use the code to fork as we see fit and have the branches compete on network effects and differing values.

We want to be able to fork in the case of a divergence of interest between the community and Steemit Inc.

You can do that today. Stake decides witnesses and witnesses define the chain, not Steemit.

We also want to be able to retain the same general rules in the case where Steemit Inc pushes through a fork which the community does not agree with.

Everyone loses bigtime if we were to do that, us included, so you can be confident that we won't.

You can do that today. Stake decides witnesses and witnesses define the chain, not Steemit.

It is disallowed by the clause. If we fork by changing the rules in any way not allowed by Steemit Inc we are in violation of this clause.

The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.

This is completely valid, but would us decentralizing the stake not accomplish the exact same thing?

This is our goal.

Until then, having a big red nuclear scram button that can be used in (technical/engineering—not ideological/policy) emergencies while we're in beta is simply high-availablity engineering prudence. There's even a feature in the blockchain right now that allows anyone to permanently cancel all of their stake's voting power, for this exact reason.

We're on the same page as you. :)

@demotruk

PS: I can't wait until we have deeper comment nesting in HF17! This 6 post deep thing is for the birds.

There is no confusion over repo forks and blockchain forks. We are on the same page re: blockchain forks.

Forks of the repo are permitted, derived works are permitted, but those works have to be used on this blockchain as defined by the witnesses (not Steemit). Those derived works, on this blockchain, would be useless without witness support, so it is basically just a requirement that your changes work within the existing stake-based DPoS framework we already all agree on.

What if we want to change to a ruleset not agreed by the current witnesses (since those witnesses are elected primarily by Steemit Inc as it stands)? That is the kind of fork we should be allowed to perform. We might want to do this for example when Steemit Inc changes the rules to something unpopular (perhaps a rule which ensures Steemit Inc always has a ruling stake), by stacking the witness list in their favour.

Forking away from this would be the communities defense against Steemit Inc becoming too powerful.

@sneak

Eventually it might not be a concern, when Steemit Inc has distributed its power as such.

However, it may still be. Your interpretation that the clause would not prevent hard forks opposed by Steemit Inc may not be how the courts or the future owners of Steemit see it. And there could still be some significant time between now and then. It only took 5 years for the Bitcoin community to completely turn on its head, for example, with various parties vying for power (some indeed threatening legal force). I am concerned about these scenarios because I have seen them happen before.

I can see your described scenario as a harmful one, but I'm not sure that legal avenues are the best defense. A contentious minority fork of Bitcoin could similarly be called 'Bitcoin' by various parties, leading to confusion. Yet I would still prefer that the market and not legal force ultimately determines what is fair to call "Bitcoin" and "Steem".

@sneak

I think the confusion is that the term "fork" refers to both the repo and the blockchain.

Forks of the repo are permitted, derived works are permitted, but those works have to be used on this blockchain as defined by the witnesses (not Steemit). Those derived works, on this blockchain, would be useless without witness support, so it is basically just a requirement that your changes work within the existing stake-based DPoS framework we already all agree on.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Parallel testing.
Edit: Parallel chains.
E.g.: When a minority thinks the majority do bullshit, they aren't able to run a chain that fits their needs. The only options this offers are not different from real world govs.: suck or GTFO.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Hi @sneak, can you please clarify regarding your comment below - If the community made a change to the code that required a hardfork, and a majority of the witnesses approved it and implemented it on the current chain, that would be allowed under the current license?

[Edit] removed second question, since I saw it had been answered.

By definition that's the current chain, and while I'm not a lawyer, my understanding of the license text and spirit is that that is allowed.

The GitHub repository has no bearing on any of it. The license allows anyone to fork the repo, but any changes to that code need to be used on the chain decided by the witnesses.

The license allows anyone to fork the repo, but any changes to that code need to be used on the chain decided by the witnesses.

Please have the license updated to make explicit that this is allowed.

It still won't be open source but it will satisfy some concerns not only of people here but also of STEEM token investors and prospective STEEM token investors.

The lack of clarity on this point is a dark cloud that impairs the value of the chain.

Please have the license updated to make explicit that this is allowed.

I think this is a reasonable thing to do, and as soon as we have the spare bandwidth to discuss the details I'd love to do so with you and the rest of the community.

The spirit of the license is simply to ensure that use of the code benefits holders of STEEM and Steem Power (whose efforts and time and attention are the reason the code is able to exist in the first place), and such a clarification fits very well within that spirit and scope.

Ok, thank you.

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, by according to my understanding "scenario of Ethereum Classic" in case of Steem network is not possible.

CC: @sneak.

That's the idea. Whatever the stakeholders (via their chosen witnesses) decide is the chain, is the chain the software is licensed for. Anyone can make changes, and Steemit is not any sort of gatekeeper in that sense.

The Ethereum situation was a total clusterfuck, and I have a feeling if it had been based on stake, Ethereum Classic would be the only one standing. Instead, Vitalik declared himself BDFL and destroyed a ton of value by fracturing his community. Fortunately, they were mostly able to recover.

We just want to make sure that any changes to steemdresult in a benefit to everyone who holds STEEM.

The Ethereum situation was a total clusterfuck

No. It was express of freedom. People which had private keys end up having both coins, so technically speaking. So if we would assume that:
Ethereum market cap before hartfork = ETH market cap + ETC market cap, then no one actually lost anything. People could do whatever they want - they could sell ETH or ETC - they could vote with own stake.

That would actually increase value of my STEEM. New fork will probably have new development team, what means more innovation - and all initial stakeholders would benefit from that.

Could I write a whole new coin that has it's own chain?

I am a long-time fan of OSS, but two points come to mind:

  1. Dan's attempt to make steem Open Source when planning to resign may have been self-serving and unethical. He probably should have waited until after resigning to initiate that pull request. Doing it when he was employed by Steemit, Inc may have reflected a conflict of interest with his employment and his future plans.
  2. I will not hold steemit to a standard that I don't apply to other products & investments. I use Windows and facebook, and their licenses are far less permissive than steemit's. My 401k has holdings in many companies that use code with far more restrictive platform licensing.

So yes, I'd like to see the code opened more to competition, but it's not a factor that's going to drive my usage or investment decisions.

If this condition is not removed by May 1st 2017, we will power down and leave the network.

Even though i support the general ideal of making STEEM fully open source, I do not think blackmailing is the right way to achieve that. Rather stick with argumentation and facts. Those can be perceived less aggressive.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Declining to continue to participate under objectionable terms (even if those terms were previously acceptable) is not any form of blackmail.

One of the facts in support of open source is that there are people who won't support the project or contribute it otherwise, including those signing this petition (but many others as well).

You've got me .. I translated into "blackmailing" wrongly :) Should have used threatening instead

Blackmail definition:

demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.

You've got me .. I translated into "blackmailing" wrongly :) Should have used threatening instead

Threaten is a strong word, but you can use it to dramatise a demonstration of conditions or demands by stake holders.

You need to understand that there is a difference between Steem holders and SteemIt Inc shareholders!

You're right that was not understood. But now that it is I've sold out.

Words are nothing without actions to back them up. I make an ultimatum and stake my Steem Power on it (which I will probably make a large loss on) to show that I mean what I say and that the issue is serious enough to warrant that.

dude sorry for saying it but use words correctly, It's not either blackmail or threaten, it's a choice so it's a decision.

and that is the only thing it is, argumentation and facts, ok sure, dan left for that reason, the experiment is total bullshit for that reason, why, because if they could they go experiment it would be better for everyone rather than disrupt the whole system, if people want a socialist steemit, go on minds or whatnot, make a sidechain, easy, if you support open source then the current system should be blackmail to you. it might be a bad time and it will surely decrease the stability and the trust in the platform since there will be 5 sidechains instantly, but i don't see you making that argument, so why do you expect others to give you the same courtesy, everybody is free to leave and they are free to say their reasons, it's not threatening, it's making a point, many have done it, you grow discontent with the way of things sooner or later and you say either stop the bullshit/problem whatever or I'm out. Nothing wrong with that, at least he extended some time for it. Dan did it out of the blue for most. Sure he was getting hate for maybe since they had started the project.

I agree, always felt it should be. The platform will work better if it can be more readily forked and cloned.

The platform will work better if it can be more readily forked and cloned

Can you explain how and why? I'm still on the fence about this license so maybe you can convince me..

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

We have witnessses. We pay them a lot. They produce blocks.. but also they decide in the name of the community whether particular hardfork should be accepted.

Because only people from Steemit Inc. can merge changes to main repository, and no one can legally create a fork, witnesses actually cannot fully decide about direction of development, therefore community do not have a way to change direction of development.

Currently witnesses can only accept new hardfork or they will be left behind.

If someone would like to introduce changes to the code, which would be great for whole community but bad for Steemit Inc, then those changes will never be actually merged to main repository which belongs to Steemit Inc.

Anyone can fork the repository and make releases if they wish. Anyone can convince witnesses to run those releases. The only restriction in the code means that you have to run the code on this chain, produced by the witnesses, who are voted in by the stakeholders.

Emphasis on control of the repo is irrelevant — Steemit has no privileged position in the scheme.

Where "this chain" is the chain where the rules are decided by Steemit Inc. Any violation of those rules would mean you end up on a different chain, disallowed by Steemit Inc.

where the rules are decided by Steemit Inc

The consensus rules are applied by the witnesses who produce blocks, not us.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

It's sort of like the AGPL in that sense

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.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

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.

  ·  3 years ago Reveal Comment

Don't think this can happened with the centralized power against it so....but I'll sign

I sign this petition.

I think that people need to relax and be patient and understand that everything that is happening is in fact, in the best interest of the community.
Chill out, smoke a fatty and wait for it.

I completely support your effort to make Steem fully open source but I won't power down and leave the network by May 1st 2017 if the developers fail to implement this condition.

I actually decided to start another petition which has mainly the same goals but takes a slightly different approach. Feel free to sign it as well: https://steemit.com/steemit/@hagbardceline/petition-to-free-steem

Interesting discussion going on here: Let my just ask a simple question as I really don't get it (yet): What is the reason for not simply using a common license such as the GPL, MIT-license, etc?

I can't answer on their behalf so I'll tag @sneak

My interpretation of previous posts is that they are concerned there will be a complete clone (name, logo and all) which will confuse people, and I guess could be used for fraud.

Though from other posts (and the fact that Golos needed permission) it seems that they don't want to allow completely alternate chains. Think "LiteSteem", the Steem equivalent of Litecoin to Bitcoin. I think these should absolutely be allowed and they would only help to drive innovation through competition.

Thank you very much for your answer. If your interpretation is correct, I'm completely with you and think the license should be changed immediately.

Never mind fork, the provision is to prohibit a competing coin and blockchain being started without permission. @sneak is absolutely right, forking can be done within the system and there is plenty of healthy discussion here etc. etc. for that.

It's not in their benefit to remove it, I don't see it happening. I presume Steemit Inc. feel that if unauthorized coins were to spring up using their technology it would devalue Steem even further. They may be quite wrong about this but I doubt they're willing to risk it.

In any case I would sign this but I don't demand anything of them and wouldn't power down.

I agree with this. Steemit Inc is a small fish right now. Having this protection from clones protects stakeholders because what would prevent a company like Medium, Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook from coming along and simply taking the technology and rebranding it.

Your comment about small fish, and big fish, is very true. I saw a similar comment you made somewhere else. Dan is aware of the streisand effect (I didn't know what that meant before today), until I realize the post I wrote last night is part of the streisand effect.

Licences and legalities are boring. However, they can be more important that coded platforms, usability, promotion, business direction, etc.

Opensourcing the steem chain is imperative in this case. It's not even an option.

pushing above the rest of he comments I agree although it would be nice to have it open source I doubt now would be a good time it would open too many holes and stretch the little resource and manpower there is to thin :)

agreed!! those who can should head to github

Oh I just saw that github comment are closed now. @neoxian and me made comments that were deleted!!

I guess it should all be on the blockchain where it can't be censored

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

I did that, because this is the place for discussion, not GitHub. :) My apologies, but I want to keep everything in one place.

It is fine as long as you start the discussion somewhere and make everyone aware of it.
Github seemed to be the only place where we could properly reach you guys.

Please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] at any time if you need to get in touch. (For the moment, this address also works for iMessage and FaceTime.)

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

@smooth pointed this out to me months ago, but I rationalised it away as something they will surely change. Steemit Inc retaining leverage, the ability to use state power to maintain their control of the network, is untenable both ideologically and in practice. I wish I had taken it more seriously months ago, before we lost @dan.

My understanding is that Steem is open-source buy steemit.com is as long as it's to be used on steem blockchain.

I support the idea but I will not power down

we can do this now like this or we can wait until we are stronger and more organized and actually get it done

The current Open Source model is outdated and inadequate for sharing of software in a world run by AI-enabled or AI-influenced systems; where users could potentially interact with thousands of AI engines in the course of a single day. We are in agreement that Open Source is only beneficial for Steem's continued success.
~The Management
Imgur

I really you don't gridlock the whole world with your technology and with it getting multiplied a thousand times, I'm tired enough as it is with people talking to their phones all day. Now all we need is thousands of AI's to flood the world, Ai this Ai that tell me this tell me that how do i do this how do i do that, the end of creativity in my view or at least the human creativity. I think we can do well enough without making a million more tools, when we start using them and get off our asses tho. We have one tool that has built it all and that is our brain, do you think it has helped everybody so far, with all the mental things going around the world we are living in concrete jungles, do you think it would be smart to stay in them forever I for one want out of my monitor.

Whatever.,

We feel the pain and agree. Open Source is about matriculating good ideas into fewer iterations. IP, Copyright and Patents are just agreed upon repositories of Walled Gardens. Pollution follows.
~The Management
Imgur

That actually turned my argument on it's head, so I have to agree. I suppose we are far away from the idea, the best example is linux and we have 50 linuxes :D, so for me Open Source leaves and creates divides. IP ad Copyright I suppose are limiting advances, pattents are good with the market economy since they are released anyway and you can secure them to add to your business if you think it would profit, but the whole economy is even more skewed than the tech world :| Still IP and Copyright are kind of stimulating and limiting in the same time, first you know that what you have is yours and nobody should copy it, but then again, it's a very philosophical matter, that is why it is legal and license orientated.

technically speaking, steem is already open source. Could you adjust a title and explain, that this is about having fully open licence, which will allow creating possible forks without Steemit Inc. written permission.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

It doesn't meet most generally-accepted defintions of open source such as the Open Source Defintion, which require the ability to make modifications and derived works (without needing written permission). Likewise retrictions on usage are generally not considered compatible with open source. I agree the terminology is a bit confusing but just having the source available and allowing certain types of changes or usage (while disallowing or requiring written permission for others) does not make it 'open source' (as most interpret that term).

Agree.

which require the ability to make modifications and derived works (without needing written permission).

Those are permitted, without written permission, right now, as long as the resulting changes are used on this blockchain. Don't you agree that any improvements to the code should benefit the community that built it?

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Open source is not consistent with broad restrictions on usage in that manner. It is a perfect example of the software developer reaching into the business of the person using the software and telling them how to do so. This is precisely the sort of thing that open source (and previously free/libre software) was created to get away from.

Don't you agree that any improvements to the code should benefit the community that built it?

Yes in general, but it is debatable whether requiring that is beneficial overall. This debate is long-running in the open source community and I won't repeat it. However, if that is your goal then use something like the AGPL which requires that improvements to the code be given back to the Steem community (which the Steem community can then decide whether or not to adopt) whether or not the person making and using those improvements herself wants to to be part of the Steem community.

I agree that should not be a license, but this post need to be written correctly, as Steem is already open source. I will not sign this, but I might sign a better written post.

It doesn't meet most generally-accepted defintions of open source such as the Open Source Defintion, which require the ability to make modifications and derived works (without needing written permission). Likewise retrictions on usage are generally not considered compatible with open source. I agree the terminology is a bit confusing but just having the source available and allowing certain types of changes or usage (while disallowing or requiring written permission for others) does not make it 'open source' (as most interpret that term).

Modifications and derived works are absolutely allowed, just as long as they are run on this chain. That's in the best interests of everyone who holds STEEM, is it not?

  ·  3 years ago Reveal Comment

It's not in the best interest of everyone who holds Steem for Steemit Inc to have a veto on changes. It also strongly implies that if Steemit were to push through changes against the communities will, that if the community were to fork a chain which retained the original rules, that would be a violation (since it requires changing the rule where the older chain cedes to the newer one).

How can it possibly be in "everyone's best interests" for when the community and Steemit Inc diverge, for Steemit Inc to win by default, with state force to back them up.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

The only reason Steemit has a practical veto on changes today is because the company—at the present moment—holds a lot of stake (regardless of license), which we have publicly committed to decentralizing over time as the platform grows. We don't want to be a government. :)

The stakeholders choose the witnesses, the witnesses choose the software.

Can you imagine the value destroyed if we were to override the community like that? Nobody would benefit from that, especially not us.

If it is not a practical veto, why keep it? What is it protecting?

You have already stated that it protects against forks. But forks are our protection against central authority.

Can you imagine the value destroyed if we were to override the community like that? Nobody would benefit from that, especially not us.

Then why keep the option for yourself to override the community? That's what the clause essentially boils down to. Steemit Inc has nothing to fear from a fork which isn't used. So it's only when the community genuinely diverges from Steemit Inc that this clause ever actually matters.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Competition could be very good for steem holders. You might see some movement of stake holders who didn't believe in steem, but any forks who attempt to compete with steem, raise publicity for steem. As long as you plan on being the better network (and you already have the community network advantage) it's more likely to be good for stake holders.

I powered down already without any plans to sell until todays news. I was about to power up again too... But I'll sign the petition anyway as a meaningless minnow voice having thought about it long enough. Bitcoin is what it is without Satoshi and with the open source permissions.

I have a while bitcoin for the first time ever which feels novel. We'll see if there's enough communication from the development team to convince me to buy my steem back...

@beanz we don't always agree but on this we agree 100%. Congrats on your first full Bitcoin BTW!

I often agree with you smooth. You're just more likely to hear from me if I disagree with you. Which makes me a nuisance lol.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

That's another way of saying that only the modifications and derived works that Steemit Inc. permits are allowed. That's essentially the definition of proprietary software. The copyright owner can always give permission. It is the lack of necessity of permission to modify and use independently that defines open source.

Or to be more clear perhaps, it doesn't meet most generally-accepted definitions of open source. For example, it violates clause 6 of the Open Source Definition by discriminating against usage (without written permission) in the field of cryptocurrencies and blockchains.

You have your business reasons for the license, which is entirely legitimate, but as a trade-off for maintaining that position you are alienating those who prefer to be involved with true, permissionless, open source projects.

Feel free to repost it with modifications.