You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Petition to Demand Steem be made fully Open Source
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.
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.