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.