"LEGAL" Is part of the problem. Steemit, Inc. is part of legal sure. But the blockchain and the very ideas of such I think are trying to lean towards "lawful" more so in "natural law", which is where I would prefer to see the blockchain and code of the bockchain reside. Steemit, Inc. is comprised of what exactly? What, if anything, is separate from Steemit, Inc. of STEEM (the blockchain)? Will look this over more in detail soon.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steemit, Inc. is a privately held company. Steemit.com is a website owned and operated by them. The Steem blockchain is the instance of the blockchain that we all love and use :) Steemit, Inc. technically does not own the blockchain. There is wording in the blockchain code though that gives Steemit, Inc. control over what is/isn't allowed with the blockchain. That is what we are trying to update/fix. Hope that helps!
Thank you. This seems sticky. Problem is a "LEGAL" trained lawyer may not understand exactly. Hope we may find the best solution for the free blockchain.
SO they don't own it, they just have exclusive control over it. How, precisely, are you distinguishing that from ownership?
I am not a lawyer. I am not really looking to get into an argument over opinion over open source philosophy. Do you have any suggestions on how we can update the language to make it less restrictive, so that the community can safely implement alternative releases to be considered by the witnesses?
There is no way to make the language 'less restrictive' from a legal standpoint because the language isn't legally enforceable. If the purpose of the language is intimidating people into complying with @sneak 's or steemit incs ideas about how steem should be implemented with empty threats of a lawsuit, the question of how to narrow the scope of that threat is a PR question, not a question of law.
Theyre lucky i don't know how, or id be putting up an unauthorized witness right now just to prove the point. (if any devs want to help me out im game)
I dont really care about open source philosphy or anything like that. But what youre looking for is a way to codify self-contradictory nonsense. Theres no lawyer in the world who is going to be able to write you anything that makes sense that says you retain all the rights of ownership but aren't owners when you can't even differentiate one condition from the other. The statement is simply not internally consistent.
No. Im not in the habit of making empty threats, so ive got no real experience prsing them to find just the right level of intimidation.
Do you have any suggestions on how to update the wording so that it does not intimidate people from creating alternative releases for the witnesses in the current chain to consider adopting, yet still intimidating enough to discourage people from starting a new chain?
nice conversation you are having here :D it really makes nonsense a good thing :D
@sigmajin
This is the wording can you please make it sound more interesting :D
Maybe, The software is used with any forks outside the steem blockchain, that are recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.
That would open the sidechains, but will also leave the legalities in the hands of steeminc, sounds simple to me, or
The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing. Unless there are more than 30-40 of the current top 50 witnesses that agree.
How about that steeminc :D how about you enact real democratic governance, it will be a bad idea sure :D just putting it out there :D