@Dantheman Last "Deleted" Post: "Making Steem Really Open Source" (Information Wants To Be Free)
This is the last post @Dan made under the account @dantheman ,
which was "deleted" but lives in the blockchain.
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/making-steem-really-open-source
https://steemd.com/tx/3b205c4416376e13722ddea0fb26a10aa83ecfdc
"
There seems to be some confusion regarding the nature of the license as discussed by @sneak and this confusion is not helping anyone involved.
Copyright (c) 2017 Steemit, Inc., and contributors.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer >in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- The currency symbols, 'STEEM' and 'SBD' are not changed and no new currency symbols are added.
- The STEEMIT_INIT_PUBLIC_KEY_STR is not changed from STM8GC13uCZbP44HzMLV6zPZGwVQ8Nt4Kji8PapsPiNq1BK153XTX,
and the software is not modified in any way that would bypass the need for the corresponding private to start a new blockchain.- The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.
So under these rules if someone produces a variation on the code that would result in a fork of the Steem blockchain the witnesses are not allowed to run it without permission of Steemit, Inc.
Any claims made by @sneak that the witnesses get to decide to run what they want are either:
- Wrong
- Officially Recognized changes by Steemit, Inc
Since he is posting from a personal account and not from a corporate account, such as @steemitblog, we can presume that he is wrong.
In this case it means that Steemit, Inc can block any change it wants. Steemit has also pursued patents on various aspects of the technology and has made no commitment to use said patents for defensive use only (if someone sues Steemit).
I have long stated that I believe all IP to be a government granted privilege enforced by violence and not a natural right. It was conceived to control freedom of speech and must violate freedom of speech to be enforced.
Against Intellectual Monopoly
In the past I have supported licenses under the theory that they only apply to those who believe in IP and that everyone who rejects the concept is free to use it. I have considered IP claims to be null and void among liberty minded individuals and companies.
Any company that must resort to government force to defend its "IP" is an aggressor.
At this point Steemit, Inc has launched the chain, established network effect, and has not attempted to enforce the license. Because of the license it did collect a hefty licensing fee from Golos and secured a share drop on Steem / Steemit. Should Steem continue to extort license fees from other clones or should it open up the license?
All these terms simply hold back innovation and limit our freedoms. It is time to let the code be free and make a commitment to only produce BSD or MIT licensed code going forward. I will never again write software that isn't BSD / MIT from the day I conceive it to the day it is released.
"
Perhaps he deleted it for a reason
Perhaps you are being very rude to make it public.
I don't think he minds:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@ned/my-announcement-march-15-2017#@dan/re-jacobcards-re-noisy-re-blocktrades-re-neoxian-re-ned-my-announcement-march-15-2017-20170316t010313374z
it wasnt deleted, technically speaking.
What happens on the net stays on the net, literally ;)
the net? the 90s called they want their lingo back.
Such a good time for the interweb ;)
lol
IIRC, Dan referred to "knowing about the Streisand effect", so I don't think he'll mind.
He knew what he was doing. He designed the system and you think he didn't think about it not being able to be deleted? HA!
Once you place the data on the blockchain, it is there forever, we all know that (Especially Dan & Ned). Perhaps he didn't like the grammar? We don't mind.
i really like open source.. but i can see the reasons why not wanting to for them
I think it's a really big mistake that they will not open source it. I can also see how a longer-term plan in @dan's head probably involved things like I have talked about, the code being on the chain, voted on, like github but with stake weighted votes and no ultimate administrator but coded in settings for a win or lose of a fork/branch, ''self hosting blockchain' I call this.
Reading this message I sorta want to get in touch with him and see if he has a new project in mind that needs coders/testers/administrators...
Greetings Loki.
@officialfuzzy gave his thoughts regarding the leaving of @dan in a post yesterday called....Reading between the lines...?
Thank you for giving your thoughts on the matter of 'open source'. Cheers.
Let me know if you find out. Enough said.
yeah. Steem is so much better than any social net or cryptocoin out there. And still there is so many things to gripe about. The competition is coming so hopefully they see the sense that they can stay in the game if they switch from corporate to nonprofit... and still make bank. This is the issue. I'm staying in the crab bucket only because at this point no other place is as cutting edge. Give it a couple of years. But in that time, Steemit, Inc. has a chance to stay in the game.
I didn't realize Steem wasn't open source, but under a crappy draconian "I'll let you see the code but not use it" license. I wonder if I can get my money out before I lose it all.