d5000 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4018
Merit: 7187
Decentralization Maximalist
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 08, 2017, 12:35:57 AM |
|
OK, there is some participation now, now I'll explain my position in this debate.
I think, like most here, that an available source code is a "must" for a cryptocurrency because of security reasons.
But I also oppose "shared source" models. In this kind of license typically changes to the source code are restricted or you can't use it for any purpose.
First, some of these licenses would impede coders to experiment with alternative implementations based on the same source code. So the software ecosystem would be limited and the development, centralized.
Second, there is a new kind of "shared source" licenses I first saw with Bitshares and Steem. In these, the code can be changed, but it cannot be used for another cryptocurrency project. If you compare this to a Linux software, for example, that would be equivalent to a term that says you couldn't use code from an Ubuntu software for Debian, for example. Also in these cases, I think the potential ecosystem growth is damaged, as "private", "Consortium" or "alternative" chains should normally benefit the main project and competition is usually healthy.
The third, and very important, reason I oppose "shared source" licenses for Bitcoin is that the code would be incompatible with many established open source software tools and could not benefit fully from the open source software ecosystem.
In conclusion: I think a "shared source" license for a cryptocurrency's reference client would have serious acceptance problems and a limited ecosystem and the underlying protocol would never develop into a fully mainstream cryptocurrency.
|