Petition to Demand Steem be made fully Open Source
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
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.
Signed. Steemit must be fully open source. No half measures.
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.
You should check out the latest thread here: https://steemit.com/license/@timcliff/update-license-md-to-reflect-views-of-steemit-inc-expressed-by-sneak-lawyer-help-requested
Steem is already open source, and GitHub is not the place to discuss any related nuances thereof.
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
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.
You can do that today. Stake decides witnesses and witnesses define the chain, not Steemit.
Everyone loses bigtime if we were to do that, us included, so you can be confident that we won't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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:
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.
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.
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.
Can you explain how and why? I'm still on the fence about this license so maybe you can convince me..
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.
The consensus rules are applied by the witnesses who produce blocks, not us.
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.
I think a fully open source STEEM would boost the price
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