Modifications and derived works are absolutely allowed, just as long as they are run on this chain. That's in the best interests of everyone who holds STEEM, is it not?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Modifications and derived works are absolutely allowed, just as long as they are run on this chain. That's in the best interests of everyone who holds STEEM, is it not?
It's not in the best interest of everyone who holds Steem for Steemit Inc to have a veto on changes. It also strongly implies that if Steemit were to push through changes against the communities will, that if the community were to fork a chain which retained the original rules, that would be a violation (since it requires changing the rule where the older chain cedes to the newer one).
How can it possibly be in "everyone's best interests" for when the community and Steemit Inc diverge, for Steemit Inc to win by default, with state force to back them up.
The only reason Steemit has a practical veto on changes today is because the company—at the present moment—holds a lot of stake (regardless of license), which we have publicly committed to decentralizing over time as the platform grows. We don't want to be a government. :)
The stakeholders choose the witnesses, the witnesses choose the software.
Can you imagine the value destroyed if we were to override the community like that? Nobody would benefit from that, especially not us.
If it is not a practical veto, why keep it? What is it protecting?
You have already stated that it protects against forks. But forks are our protection against central authority.
Then why keep the option for yourself to override the community? That's what the clause essentially boils down to. Steemit Inc has nothing to fear from a fork which isn't used. So it's only when the community genuinely diverges from Steemit Inc that this clause ever actually matters.
Competition could be very good for steem holders. You might see some movement of stake holders who didn't believe in steem, but any forks who attempt to compete with steem, raise publicity for steem. As long as you plan on being the better network (and you already have the community network advantage) it's more likely to be good for stake holders.
I powered down already without any plans to sell until todays news. I was about to power up again too... But I'll sign the petition anyway as a meaningless minnow voice having thought about it long enough. Bitcoin is what it is without Satoshi and with the open source permissions.
I have a while bitcoin for the first time ever which feels novel. We'll see if there's enough communication from the development team to convince me to buy my steem back...
@beanz we don't always agree but on this we agree 100%. Congrats on your first full Bitcoin BTW!
I often agree with you smooth. You're just more likely to hear from me if I disagree with you. Which makes me a nuisance lol.
That's another way of saying that only the modifications and derived works that Steemit Inc. permits are allowed. That's essentially the definition of proprietary software. The copyright owner can always give permission. It is the lack of necessity of permission to modify and use independently that defines open source.
Or to be more clear perhaps, it doesn't meet most generally-accepted definitions of open source. For example, it violates clause 6 of the Open Source Definition by discriminating against usage (without written permission) in the field of cryptocurrencies and blockchains.
You have your business reasons for the license, which is entirely legitimate, but as a trade-off for maintaining that position you are alienating those who prefer to be involved with true, permissionless, open source projects.