Meaning of "free to use for BitShares" (license)

[santaclause102]

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

So if I understand this correctly it is allowed to use the graphene toolkit freely for a new chain if the stake is 100% dropped on BTS. Plus of course using graphene to make worker proposals that add features to Bitshares. Is there any other case apart from these two where no permission has to be acquired from CNX to use graphene? Or did I get this completely wrong?

[bytemaster]

Exactly because nobody can foresee how we will all think in the future, I need to ask - Is the free use for Bitshares non-revocable?

Yes.  The only thing that is "revokable" is future work.

[starspirit]

Exactly because nobody can foresee how we will all think in the future, I need to ask - Is the free use for Bitshares non-revocable?

[Stan]

Will CNX basically "enforce" the "social consensus/contract" legally? Or is the concept a different one?

A social consensus is not something you can "enforce".
But if you combine it with the reasoning I expressed below, you can see that getting a license adds additional incentives.

Here's what I said recently to a potential developer:

My recommendation is to try to stay on the BitShares chain if at all possible for shared network effect and interoperability.
Reasons for sacrificing these advantages:

1.  Your application is philosophically incompatible - e.g. you want to build a government controlled chain.
2.  Your economics are different - e.g. you need micropayments and ultra low cost transaction fees or some other rate structure.
3.  You need to distribute new shares to a different demographic to gain their support and all the shares on this chain are already taken.

These are some of the reasons we might agree to license Graphene to another chain, since by definition it can't compete because of its inherent incompatibilities.

Otherwise, if a chain competes with BitShares we would tend to accept the challenge and compete right back.  (That is unlikely to result in a license of Graphene.) 

Better to join us or convince us you are harmless.

If you are plowing new ground and give our BTSholders a stake, we would generally be in favor of that.

That said, we have learned that at all times we are dumber now than we will be later, so we want to defer every decision possible to our future smarter selves.

The last point is why we don't make any categorical statements about what we will or won't do.
But you can see how we generally look at it from our many prior comments.

[xeroc]

Will CNX basically "enforce" the "social consensus/contract" legally? Or is the concept a different one?

[Shentist]

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

the only point of 2.0 that is not "fair" in my opinion. The community supporters for long times are shut out of the possible private chains Cryptonomex will create and
this community can have 1 chain. At least you should consider to give the BTS community the right to make as many chains with 100% sharedroping.

If you look carefully this is really the next big cut the community has to take.

1. merger - because the possibilty bytemaster will leave BTS
2. Cryptonomex - restriction to 1 chain, because of what??

and to be clear, i know everyone has the need to get food and money etc., but why are you not considering to give later the BTS community a fair amount of Cryptonomex? Just my opinion, but just take
one look from outside. If you would be out of Cryptonomex, would you consider this proposal good or bad for you?

Yes, because without CNX it is more likely that others will copy and give BTS nothing.   Now CNX brings everyone together and forces some cooperation and organization. 

In other words, BTS has strictly less competition now than before and a strictly higher probability of getting share dropped on because CNX will require that for any chain where it makes sense.

so you say, sharedroping is still possible if CNX will say - yes! ok, i understand! then i will leave with a famous quote

"with great power, comes great responsibility"

i hope this will guide your (CNX) decisions in the future. 

[arhag]

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

Could Graphene derived software be used (without permission from Cryptonomex) to interface with other blockchains and networks other than just BitShares as long as the software wasn't being used to implement a new blockchain? So for example, could the Graphene GUI or server node be freely modified, without permission from Cryptonomex, to act as a BitShares and Bitcoin multiwallet (meaning using the existing protocols and networks and not implementing a new blockchain/protocol that manages BTC tokens)?

[bytemaster]

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

the only point of 2.0 that is not "fair" in my opinion. The community supporters for long times are shut out of the possible private chains Cryptonomex will create and
this community can have 1 chain. At least you should consider to give the BTS community the right to make as many chains with 100% sharedroping.

If you look carefully this is really the next big cut the community has to take.

1. merger - because the possibilty bytemaster will leave BTS
2. Cryptonomex - restriction to 1 chain, because of what??

and to be clear, i know everyone has the need to get food and money etc., but why are you not considering to give later the BTS community a fair amount of Cryptonomex? Just my opinion, but just take
one look from outside. If you would be out of Cryptonomex, would you consider this proposal good or bad for you?

Yes, because without CNX it is more likely that others will copy and give BTS nothing.   Now CNX brings everyone together and forces some cooperation and organization. 

In other words, BTS has strictly less competition now than before and a strictly higher probability of getting share dropped on because CNX will require that for any chain where it makes sense.

[tonyk]

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

the only point of 2.0 that is not "fair" in my opinion. The community supporters for long times are shut out of the possible private chains Cryptonomex will create and
this community can have 1 chain. At least you should consider to give the BTS community the right to make as many chains with 100% sharedroping.

If you look carefully this is really the next big cut the community has to take.

1. merger - because the possibilty bytemaster will leave BTS
2. Cryptonomex - restriction to 1 chain, because of what??

and to be clear, i know everyone has the need to get food and money etc., but why are you not considering to give later the BTS community a fair amount of Cryptonomex? Just my opinion, but just take
one look from outside. If you would be out of Cryptonomex, would you consider this proposal good or bad for you?

 
Yes, the stubbornness on this issue is ... well strange... strange just so I do not have to say concerning.

In other words 100% sharedrop on BTS might be a bad thing...pending Cryptonemex Approval ?

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

the only point of 2.0 that is not "fair" in my opinion. The community supporters for long times are shut out of the possible private chains Cryptonomex will create and
this community can have 1 chain. At least you should consider to give the BTS community the right to make as many chains with 100% sharedroping.

If you look carefully this is really the next big cut the community has to take.

1. merger - because the possibilty bytemaster will leave BTS
2. Cryptonomex - restriction to 1 chain, because of what??

and to be clear, i know everyone has the need to get food and money etc., but why are you not considering to give later the BTS community a fair amount of Cryptonomex? Just my opinion, but just take
one look from outside. If you would be out of Cryptonomex, would you consider this proposal good or bad for you?

Yes, because without CNX it is more likely that others will copy and give BTS nothing.   Now CNX brings everyone together and forces some cooperation and organization. 

In other words, BTS has strictly less competition now than before and a strictly higher probability of getting share dropped on because CNX will require that for any chain where it makes sense.

What is oddly missing is - 'the BTS blockchain or other derived as a 100% sharedrop from BTS'

[Shentist]

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

the only point of 2.0 that is not "fair" in my opinion. The community supporters for long times are shut out of the possible private chains Cryptonomex will create and
this community can have 1 chain. At least you should consider to give the BTS community the right to make as many chains with 100% sharedroping.

If you look carefully this is really the next big cut the community has to take.

1. merger - because the possibilty bytemaster will leave BTS
2. Cryptonomex - restriction to 1 chain, because of what??

and to be clear, i know everyone has the need to get food and money etc., but why are you not considering to give later the BTS community a fair amount of Cryptonomex? Just my opinion, but just take
one look from outside. If you would be out of Cryptonomex, would you consider this proposal good or bad for you?

[xeroc]

Some other statement of BM mentioned that there will ever only be a SIBGLE BitShares block/smartchain

[bytemaster]

It means BitShares (BTS) and not any other token / ledger.

[santaclause102]

BM mentioned that graphene is "free to use for Bitshares". How is "Bitshares" exactly defined here? Does it mean: For any chain that is dropping 100% on BTS? What other use cases are there that fall under this free to use category?