Quote from: bubble789 on June 15, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.


All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Watch the rest of our announcements this summer, then make up your minds.  :)

@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

If we're looking at Bitshares purely as a protocol then Bitshares can run on any toolkit that fully implements it. A great example of this is Crypti. They have reimplemented Bitshares in Javascript.

While Graphene is clearly the best choice right now that may not always be the case. It could happen that Toast and Vikram decide to take some of their skills and create BitChains, Inc to build a better toolkit.

At that point we'll be back here again. This is important because it means that Bitshares is not married to Cryptonomex and Graphene. They are just currently the best gig in town right now and for the foreseeable future.

riverhead-del-server-1 and backbone.riverhead will be making the switch.  Presumably bm.payroll.riverhead as well but that isn't my choice even if it's obvious.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

Quote from: maqifrnswa on June 14, 2015, 10:48:15 PM
reference:

Quote from: bytemaster on June 13, 2015, 04:39:09 PM
license description...

and:

Quote from: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
Graphene source code is owned by Cryptonomex.
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
BItSHares may purchase extra features from Cryptonomex

I like and see what is trying to be done, actually looks pretty good. May I suggest a minor change?

Quote from: bytemaster on June 13, 2015, 04:39:09 PM...The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions.

Cryptonomex should explicitly grant explicit rights

Language: Cryptonomex grants an irrevocable license for unrestricted modification and distribution in both source and binary form provided that modifications are solely for use within the BitShares community and will be used solely with the BitShares blockchain.

This is an open source license with a restriction on the freedom-of-use. Not that uncommon. For example, see:
http://www.json.org/license.html
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
But doesn't define what is Good or Evil behviour, so people hate it, legally.

Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.

reference:

Quote from: bytemaster on June 13, 2015, 04:39:09 PM
license description...

and:

Quote from: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
Graphene source code is owned by Cryptonomex.
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
BItSHares may purchase extra features from Cryptonomex

I like and see what is trying to be done, actually looks pretty good. May I suggest a minor change?

Quote from: bytemaster on June 13, 2015, 04:39:09 PM...The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions.

Cryptonomex should explicitly grant explicit rights

Language: Cryptonomex grants an irrevocable license for unrestricted modification and distribution in both source and binary form provided that modifications are solely for use within the BitShares community and will be used solely with the BitShares blockchain.

This is an open source license with a restriction on the freedom-of-use. Not that uncommon. For example, see:
http://www.json.org/license.html
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
But doesn't define what is Good or Evil behviour, so people hate it, legally.

Quote from: brainbug on June 14, 2015, 09:08:08 PM
CNX is committed to BitShares, and they love it.

+5%

Quote from: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 08:53:14 PM

Quote from: pc on June 14, 2015, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction

Very good, thanks for the clarification!

+5%

I believe the whole new, upcoming setting now is just AWESOME +10 and extremely well planned.

As far as I can tell from history it is highly important to have an industry-scale support at hand; just like CNX. That is also the only reason why Ripple still exists. CNX is committed to BitShares, and they love it.

Recall further that CNX is only one of the parents of BitShares, the AGS/PTS community is the other of course. We all know that two supporting, caring and patient parents are the very best for the successful development of any child. I'm going to support CNX by heart and hope you too! They have shown capable of the job and do have all the knowledge! What else could we (the BitShares community) dream of? Right, a CNX-like competitor, hehe.

Just remember: competition is the natural engine of any great economy. This is how it starts and works, NOW :-)

Looking forward to see bts2.0 flying.

Quote from: onceuponatime on June 14, 2015, 09:00:23 PM

Quote from: betax on June 14, 2015, 08:50:12 PM
I assume the intention is that Cryptonomex will own all ip and I assume will be able to license it to anyone.

Not wise to "assume".  It needs to be specifically stated as to what the policy will be.

I know, I would prefer that licenses fees are distributed with Bitshares but my hopes are all gone now, so I assume the worst, I might be surprised.

Quote from: betax on June 14, 2015, 08:50:12 PM
I assume the intention is that Cryptonomex will own all ip and I assume will be able to license it to anyone.

Not wise to "assume".  It needs to be specifically stated as to what the policy will be.

Quote from: onceuponatime on June 14, 2015, 08:46:45 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
Graphene source code is owned by Cryptonomex.
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
BItSHares may purchase extra features from Cryptonomex

Does the "purchase" of features that BitShares will vote on and pay for come with those licensing rights?
In other words, if any other Cryptonomex customer wants to then buy  those (bought and paid for) features when they see how great they are working on BitShares, does the fee go to BitShares (who will be ordering and paying for them) or to Cryptomex?

I would prefer that anything Cryptonomex will develop with BitShares worker payment and a new customer needs this feature they buy and burn BTS as a buyback program with some of the recieved license money.

Quote from: pc on June 14, 2015, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction

Very good, thanks for the clarification!

+5%

^^ pertinent question.

I assume the intention is that Cryptonomex will own all ip and I assume will be able to license it to anyone.

Quote from: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
Graphene source code is owned by Cryptonomex.
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
BItSHares may purchase extra features from Cryptonomex

Does the "purchase" of features that BitShares will vote on and pay for come with those licensing rights?
In other words, if any other Cryptonomex customer wants to then buy  those (bought and paid for) features when they see how great they are working on BitShares, does the fee go to BitShares (who will be ordering and paying for them) or to Cryptomex?

Quote from: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction

Very good, thanks for the clarification!