I discovered something unpleasant today: Steem's license
(I need to post this while @htooms power is low...)
Hello all,
I discovered something just now that has shaken my faith in Steemit. I'm embarrassed I hadn't seen this sooner given how much I'm invested; this is no one's fault but my own.
A little background:
I've been a fan of Linux for a long time. Linux is an open source operating system. Much of it is licensed under the GPL and/or Mit or similar open source licenses. This is very important to me. Linux doesn't depend on any one person or company to exist. If Linus Torvalds got hit by a bus (heaven forbid) or Red Hat folded, Linux would be just fine. Others would pick it up and it would go on.
In this sense, Linux is universal, open and available to all of humanity at little to no cost. Most open source projects are like that. That's why I support and love the concept so much.
Regarding crypto-currencies: I remember discovering Bitcoin in 2010 and it is/was also open source (MIT license). Believe me, I would have never touched Bitcoin with a ten-foot pole if it had been closed source or had an overly restrictive license. In this sense, Bitcoin is also Universal, available to all people of the world. Of course, if you change Bitcoin too much, this becomes a Hardfork, which is a whole other issue. But anyone is free to create their own fork of Bitcoin and if it is popular enough, it catches on, otherwise not.
Bitcoin doesn't depend on any one person or company. Most of other crypto-coins I'm aware of are the same (Dash is Mit licensed, ethereum is GPL, Monero has a permissive license, Ripple seems pretty open too)
So what about Steem, well:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/LICENSE.md
The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.
Uh yea, this isn't good. When Dan announced he was leaving, I told myself "A crypto-currency shouldn't depend on any one person (or company)" Well, Steem is dependent on Steem Inc. Steem isn't universal, it doesn't belong to the world. If Steem Inc goes out of business, others would be able to fix minor bugs, but would not have permission to do anything major (i.e a hardfork).
This is a deal breaker for me. I might actually power down over this. (Again, this is my fault, and I'm dumb for not having seen this sooner.) In my mind, this clause absolutely must be stricken from the license.
Am I over-reacting? Can someone re-assure me?
Edit:
Look's like @dan wanted to open source it but it was rejected:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/pull/936
Thanks for the page, I am happy to comment. :)
[Note: I am not a lawyer.]
The things you attribute to Linux and Bitcoin are also valid with Steem. No approval is required from Steemit to fork the repo, or to convince the legitimate witnesses to run your update.
The clause in the license is to ensure that any future development work is run on this blockchain, as defined by the witnesses (not Steemit Inc), so that the STEEM currency that we all hold is the beneficiary of changes. It's protection against confusing clones/altcoins, not forks. Any changes that the witnesses run is the valid chain and we have no say in that (other than as any other holder of stake).
As a staunch open source person myself, I too was initially surprised when I saw that nonstandard license, but it makes sense in a weird way. The opportunity to make changes to this code comes with the caveat that your subsequent improvements must benefit the specific community (STEEM holders) that provided that opportunity in the first place, which is why it needs to run on this chain. I see it much like the AGPL in that sense.
Thanks for your reply, this does make me feel a little bit better about things.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@steemitblog/steemit-com-is-now-open-source
not sure how this relates..I think it only applies to Steemit.com and not STEEM. I agree it should be open source as well.
That is the website, not the currency.
Who makes this decision to remove the licence regarding the currency? I agree, I think it would be a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure, but I think that is only for the website, not the underlying blockchain.
This absolutely must be removed from the licence. No better time to do it.
Hmmm - that sounds not very good even I am far away from being on expert
if enough people are onboard with the fork it could easily be done we would just need one user to step up and fork it anonymously lol
So @Dan is leaving? I just join your protest on github(finally!!)
I have said again and again that Steemit is not as open as it should be, which is why I welcomed busy.org. The average user should be able to access the blockchain without trusting a website. I am trying to teach the average Steemians.
Time to look seriously at the Grass on the otherside (Akasha, Synero...)
The issue isn't the front end interface. If that's all it was, I wouldn't care. This concerns the underlying Steem currency.
I don't speak about the front-end, I speak about the blockchain. The more open nodes the better. But all of this is for naught if Steemit inc. has the last word. This would change the way I participate here.
@ned, @sneak, as per @dan's comment, are you seriously holding Steem back from being Open Source?
How can you expect any of us to see a future in Steem if you're holding the network hostage like this?
Steem is completely open source, and anyone can make changes to the codebase, provided they use them on this witness-defined blockchain. This is much like the AGPL: if you want to use the code provided by the community, your changes have to benefit that community, which is all of the people who hold STEEM.
The way I am reading it (I'm not a lawyer) it doesn't prohibit hardforks provided those HFs go through the existing DPoS process of witness/stake approval. Forking the repo, making your own releases, and getting witnesses to run that (via the existing DPoS witness voting system we all already agree with) is what defines the chain and the license already allows usage of the software on that chain (which is the one all of us STEEM stakeholders care about).
Does that make sense? In no way is Steemit a gatekeeper for that usage. That clause is to prevent people from making clones that confuse the market. It has to be on this chain, but stakeholders are the ones who control this chain.
I understand your position on it now, I did not earlier today, so this conversation has been informative. However I fear that the clause could be validly interpreted in a much more draconian way, by courts, lawyers and future Steemit Inc executives. The plain text understanding of it I have seems to allow Steemit Inc to be the sole decider on the legitimacy of a fork.
Even just the fact that investors can interpret it in a draconian way, is a problem in itself.
Perhaps, and I can certainly relate to that point of view as well.
I think once we're out of beta it would be completely reasonable to relicense it, but right now we want to guard it as carefully as possible (only from damage, not from community influence) until it has its sea legs.
I fully support the current stance and also hope for a future where relicensing make sense.
https://github.com/steemit/steem/pull/936
Yea, here is the issue. For easy reference.
If steemit inc goes out of business surely they would open source it no?
To me the main interrogation I have is if steem is allowed to split into 2 chains? I have asked this question multiples times and been ignored so far.
If the license prevents from doing this, then it means witnesses can only refuse to upgrade but can't upgrades with code that isn't steemit,inc. I'm not sure if this is really problematic, because the devs team would be wasting their time producing code that people don't want as it would always be rejected by witnesses.
I think the reason for this license is to prevent competition which is good in my book, because if the code becomes open source you can be certain someone will build something more fair and get a lot more support. So this license kinda encourage everyone to solve issue on this blockchain.
I suppose the license could be removed at a later date when steem has reached critical mass. The way i see it that steem will become more and more decentralized and steemit inc might not even exist 5-10 years from now.
Steem have a solid base where effective governance tools can be built, that's what I would like to see in the future. ( community polls, budget for developers, budget for new account creation, everything can be decentralized..)
Maybe they would...maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they would sell the IP to someone else. I don't know. I don't trust people or companies. I trust code and licenses.
Respectfully, I disagree. Competition is good and desirable, and an important part of the free market of ideas.
The decision of which fork to use should be made by the top 19 witnesses that everyone votes for. But this isn't the case at all. It is solely up to Steemit Inc, due to that license clause. (Yes I know they have a ton of SP to vote for witness as well, but that doesn't bother me, the license does.)
The way I read it, that's the case now - the chain is the one defined by the witnesses, voted for by stakeholders. That's the chain the software is for. That doesn't require any approval or authorization from Steemit.
The clause is for clones/altcoins using the same codebase: it could cause tremendous confusion (especially considering that the blue steem logo up there in the top left is effectively unrestricted for use) if someone made a completely unrelated chain using the codebase and tried to pass it off as affiliated with this community of STEEM stakeholders in some way.
I am all for allowing steem to split but allowing anyone to create a new coin is a good way to devalue your investment.
I would have not invested in steem without this license, way too risky.
I don't know if they could make this distinction in the license but it would be good I guess.
Petition to open source Steem.
https://steemit.com/steem/@demotruk/petition-to-demand-steem-be-made-open-source
Your comments on GitHub were deleted.
yea i saw
Sorry about that, GitHub isn't the place for that discussion - I want to keep it all here so everyone can see and participate. Apologies for deleting your comments, if they had been longer I would have contacted you first so you could repost them here.
Bipcoin
BipCot
That is all.