The only restriction is that the code may only be used to run the official Steem blockchain,
I understand why this restriction is there, but its a stupid restriction.
Why, you might ask. Because it can't be enforced. It would be like microsoft saying you can only run word if you install wingdings font. Or chrome saying you can only use their browser to look at certain websites.
Even if you were somehow willing and able to litigate such a violation of terms (and sneak mentioned in a recent reply that this is unlikely), im actually not sure you would win. There is at least some caselaw that speaks to modification being fair use. ANd being free software, the EULA isnt a very strong protection against that defense.
And even if you won, im not sure you could establish that there were actual damages.
In other words, this entire exercise is a pointless waste of time with questionable benefits, but one which leaves the platform with an oddball license (compared to the other top 20+ coins that all use standard open source licenses) that creates both perception and practical barriers to its adoption (the latter including that any company wanting to use the code and build on the blockchain will have to get legal review of the non-standard license before doing so, unlike with a well-known standard license, and also including that the additional clauses may render the license incompatible with others, preventing or complicating some forms of software integration).
I'm in favor the clarification, in principle, but only as a second-best solution, and it is a fairly distant second.
Zero benefits. If you have a strong community why would you fear a fork?
@smooth is on your side of the debate, in that he wants it fully open sourced.
Pretty sure @dana-edwards was agreeing with me, only taking it a bit farther: questionable benefits -> zero benefits.
Ah, ok. I misunderstood. I don't think that implementing the change being discussed in the post though is without benefit though. It is at least better than what we have currently. You can make the argument that you want it to go further, but I see no reason not to at least make the step being proposed.
[nesting]
@timcliff
I think you still misunderstood the exchange a bit, but it isn't worth continuing to belabor it I suspect. I agree that the proposed change (if effectively drafted) would be an improvement.
Agreed, I probably did. I can msg you when I start to work on the draft for the update and see if you have any input.
just as a side note to this, ive been looking into the license and its legal ramifications.
One of the things ive learned (software licensing isnt really my area of expertise, though I am an attorney) is that Steem's EULA is completely nugatory in the EU. Their highest court (the EU court of justice) struck down attempts to enforce copyuright/licensing schemes. Somewhat ironically, the case where they did so involved Steam (with an a).
So at the very least, the restrictions found in the license aren't binding at all to anyone with access to a European VPS.
The enforcability of it is definitely debatable. If the license is at least attempting to stop it though, then at the very least people going down that path would be making a conscious decision to violate the spirit of Steemit's license, and risk being taken to court.
i don't know. DOes it violate the 'spirit' of steems license? Dan made the thing, and he wants it out. It that our collective 'spirit' -- telling other people what theyre allowed to run on their own computer, and threatening to take them to court if they fail to comply?
They would be making a decision to voilate the letter of steems license -- which is a restriction in place solely to attempt to maintain a monopoly. A restriction that every other coin in the world survives without. but the spirit? i dont know
Dan is no longer working for Steemit, so his views on the spirit of the license are not relevant to what Steemit's position now is.
When you talk about the spirit of a document or law, you're talking about its intended meaning. Regardless of how he is now employed, he was the one who fashioned the license, and the software to which it applies. His opinion on the matter speaks to the spirit of the documents.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are dead. We still talk about what they envisioned when they penned the consitution and bill of rights. If such relevance can survive death, it can certainly survive unemployment.
If the current "spirit" of inc is making empty threats to sue people to maintain a monopoly, perhaps that spirit ought to be rethought.
As mentioned by @sneak above, the spirit of the license that Dan added when he created the product is not the same as what he wanted it changed to when he left. The spirit of the original license created by Dan is even more restrictive than what Steemit wants to enforce. That is why we are trying to make the changes based on how @sneak is saying it should be interpreted.