(…)
So, let us get this straight?
You do not like patents because thy restrict your ability to take someone's original code published under the GNU General Public License and then incorporate that code into your code which you will sell or provide publicly or privately for your personal gain while choosing TO NOT publish your work product under the GNU General Public License because you do not want people to find out where the routines actually came from? is that correct?
In terms of 'sharing our personal views', please remember that our personal views are the same as over 24 million others developers working across 67 million repositories who have chosen to make their codebase's public under the GNU General Public License and share freely with anyone else who will adhere to the GNU General Public License.
Wow.
So, because I am critial of your approach, I automatically have malicious intent? Not exactly a professional answer. I have no intent to take your code (or pieces of it) and use it for my own personal gains. You can keep your insults.
By the way, did you write all the code you are using from scratch, or did you take code from other projects? Because, even if your premine is "incredibly low", I would still argue that this is a "personal gain" in some way. This would not exactly be in line with the views you expressed, would it. But I don't really want to go there, because I don't know and I don't care that much. Plus, generally, cheap shots are not my style.
(…)because you do not want people to find out where the routines actually came from? is that correct?
No, that is not "correct". You go look at Bcash and what Craig Wright and nChain are doing with their patents. Do you think that is a good idea? If you are in their corner, you can go fuck yourselves anyway.
But since you share the views of 24 million devs who use GNU-GPL, I guess you are not and you find it just as awful as most of us do.
Now, since you want the GNU-GPL and patents, here is a paragraph from the GNU-GPL:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Source:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.htmlSo basically, when you have GNU-GPL in place and are willing to follow it, you can't really prevent others from using your code, as long as they follow the GNU-GPL. Having a patent seems extremely redundant, since both (the patent and the GNU-GPL) are supposed to do the exact same thing: providing a legal framework which defines under which circumstances code may be used.
This leads me back to a part of my post you decided not to address:
From what you are writign above, it seems like you are trying to fight fire with fire. Fair enough, but that puts a lot of power in the hands of whoever holds the patent. Unless the holder sets up a legally binding contract which specifies under which circumstances the holder is willing to assert their power, I am out.
To put it a bit differently:
What exactly are you planning to enforce with the patent AND the GNU-GPL?
Why do you think you need both?
What are the conditions under which others are allowed to use your code?
How can we be sure that you will be true to your word?
And, probably the most complex, but most important point when it comes to blockchain tech:
What means do you have in place which prevent centralization around the patent holder in case of a dispute?
Let's take the Ethereum hard fork as an example: should something like that happen on your network, what would be your course of action? would you allow a hardfork? Would you try to prevent it?
Let me be clear here: I am absolutely in favor of giving credit where credit is due and paying content creators for their work. However, blockchain tech operates in a realm in which traditional payment structures are not easily applied, because they pose the danger of centralization via legal enforcement.
