Here is my idea:
The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.
Steemit, Inc gives permission for software to be used when a majority of Witnesses vote on its usage, provided that the software only adds blocks to the pre-existing blockchain, and thus, preserves the history of account balances and transactions.
A witness is a node that is voted on with participants stake.
Stake are units of Steem currency locked into Steem Power.
@timcliff @demotruk
I added a bit about the blockchain. I don't think its necessary to get too bogged down in technical details, this plain language above would show that Steemit Inc intends that the system should work as it does now. And that it has their blanket permission to do so.
That's a good start. I think that we still need some language that defines what chain it is run on. The intent is for it to be only on the 'current chain' which we all understand. The question is how to make that part clear in legal terms.
That's the hard part. Everyone thought we all had the same idea of how Nakamoto Consensus worked, but it turned out there were two competing theories. It is likely that we will find the same thing with Steem consensus.
This is part of why I lean towards simply allowing people to use the code, without conditions. For me if we find some huge ideological divide on how to proceed among the Steem community or conflicting interests, it is preferable to simply allow a split than to remain in a toxic marriage like we have seen with Bitcoin. In the end, the market will decide what it prefers.
It is not our call, and Steemit has indicated that they are not ready to go that far with the licensing. They are willing to work with us to allow anyone in the community to fork the existing chain - provided the fork gains the approval of the witnesses. This is a huge step forward, and I think we should at least be happy with that.