RE: Deleted

[neoxian]

This is what I was afraid of. Thanks for this post.

Edit: He deleted this post, but you can read it here:
https://steemd.com/tx/3b205c4416376e13722ddea0fb26a10aa83ecfdc

Comments

[the-future]

Now, you are not afraid anymore because you know it! :D

[dhimmel]

Ah yes. Also can see history at https://scribe.steemian.info/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsteempeak.com%2Fsteem%2F%40dantheman%2Fmaking-steem-really-open-source

[bleujay]

Thank you @neoxian. Very much appreciate the link.

[freebornangel]

tyvm for that link!!

[karenmckersie]

Thanks for the link !👍

[personz]

Thank you, was going to go looking for it 🙂

[biophil]

I always did think that restrictive license seemed pretty un-dannish.

[ash]

not really. bitshares was restricted too in the beginning

[biophil]

Yeah, dan is decently radical. :)

I think the voluntaryst anti-IP stance is intriguing. You have a community that, on the one hand, upholds personal property rights as inalienable. But on the other hand, they demand that intellectual property, if public, must be commonly-owned (of course, trade secrets are fine - but everybody agrees on that one). I see how both of these are logical conclusions of the non-violence principle, but they also look (from the outside) to be a bit at odds with one another. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss it, I suppose. I'll write a blog about it one day.

[voluntary]

re: Voluntaryist approach to infinitely reproducible works (ie: IP) - enlightened consumers are free to consciously choose to support their favoured content creators.