I think the way the license is in it's current form actually protects stakeholders, because making it illegal to fork STEEM by writing so directly into the software license means that the social giants (Facebook for instance) can not simply fork and use the same underlying code without potential litigation.
That being said, I know @dan is a man of principles and I could see his argument for wanting to make the Steem block chain fully open source.
I just wish if this was the beef, that they could have compromised in some way to keep the leadership team of Steemit, Inc. together. I don't think this marks the end of the Steem experiment but certainly it is the end of an era.
It doesn't protect from Google or Facebook. If they want, they hire the best devs and write a similar or even better software in no time. They have 'endless' resources.
@robrigo Steemit loose that small advantages by alienating free minded users and devs. Loosing value by being way slower than with parallel chain development. Loosing users or raise tension by forcing the minority to accept the decisions of the majority (which could be a few big stake holder) without making available alternatives. This is vendor lock-in by a monopoly.
the problem is... that witnesses (chosen by community) cannot chose to run hardfork not approved by Steemit Inc. So if someone would came up with an idea, which will be great for Steem community, but bad for Steemit Inc., then those changes would never be implemented.
@tibonova I don't disagree they can start from scratch and compete, certainly. It's not a panacea but it gives the Steem network a small advantage vs. their endless resources.
So please give us more data. We are shareholders of Steem, which codebase is controlled by Steemit Inc. We would like to know more.
It is very possible/likely that his decision to leave was not directly related to this specific issue. To say that is the 'reason' is assuming a lot.
I think the way the license is in it's current form actually protects stakeholders, because making it illegal to fork STEEM by writing so directly into the software license means that the social giants (Facebook for instance) can not simply fork and use the same underlying code without potential litigation.
That being said, I know @dan is a man of principles and I could see his argument for wanting to make the Steem block chain fully open source.
I just wish if this was the beef, that they could have compromised in some way to keep the leadership team of Steemit, Inc. together. I don't think this marks the end of the Steem experiment but certainly it is the end of an era.
It doesn't protect from Google or Facebook. If they want, they hire the best devs and write a similar or even better software in no time. They have 'endless' resources.
@robrigo Steemit loose that small advantages by alienating free minded users and devs. Loosing value by being way slower than with parallel chain development. Loosing users or raise tension by forcing the minority to accept the decisions of the majority (which could be a few big stake holder) without making available alternatives. This is vendor lock-in by a monopoly.
the problem is... that witnesses (chosen by community) cannot chose to run hardfork not approved by Steemit Inc. So if someone would came up with an idea, which will be great for Steem community, but bad for Steemit Inc., then those changes would never be implemented.
@tibonova I don't disagree they can start from scratch and compete, certainly. It's not a panacea but it gives the Steem network a small advantage vs. their endless resources.
Good advice.
@noisy here's some more data https://steemd.com/tx/3b205c4416376e13722ddea0fb26a10aa83ecfdc