I edited the post to correct that statement, but you explicitly asked that it not be permissively licensed until after Zcash had gained a sufficient “1st mover’s advantage”, which is the same thing AFAICT.
The initial tone of the post was not great, I edited a lot of that out and apologize for the initial wording.
You’re misreading the licensing – it’s stating that if a company/entity uses the code in a closed-source application, they have to open-source their own derivative work after some period of time under BOSL as well.
BOSL does not automatically fall back to MIT after a set period of time, that is an entirely different topic and would require an active relicense by whoever decides those things.
@sethforprivacy why should zcash not be allowed to have the first mover advantage here?
…are you reflecting what you are writting?
maybe we should put monero devs into the zcash development fund next?
Speaking in real-world terms, OSS offerings cater to goals and user needs. Like 2 different Wi-Fi router firmwares, if one project has improvements over the other, the end-user ends up flashing their router with the one with better tech.
Here we have Zcash offering a trustless shielded pool tech with auto-shielding to cater to end-user privacy needs. Shouldn’t hardcore Monero users that care for privacy simply buy Zcash?
Why do you think Monero should get special exception ahead of other projects? Why can’t you wait for MIT relicence?
Even if the code was truly open-source (permissively licensed, to be clear) you would absolutely have a first-movers advantage.
No one will deploy this before you, and any sane project would wait to see how things fare on main-net etc. first before attempting to use the same implementation.
Open-source does not preclude first-movers advantage, though it of course opens up the risk of forks/clones down the line (a necessary part of code truly being FOSS).
FOSS is not about first-movers advantage or a competitive edge, it’s about contributing to the broader good no matter what.
If your primary motivations for upgrades in Zcash are first-movers advantage and a competitive edge, closed-source would be a much better option for you. But obviously that is anathema to many (for good reason) and would be a loss for the broader ecosystem (while also opening up Zcash to more bugs and problems as the code would have less contributors and less eyes on it).
You say “I edited the post to correct that statement” but all I read is “I’m editing to manipulate my previous attempt at manipulation as to save face”
Regarding my original point, I’ll repeat myself: I am only recommending for things to remain as they are until we see which is the best path to ensure Zcash adoption.
If moneristas don’t like it, so be it.
Anyone has always been welcome to do that, I am not stopping anyone from buying or using Zcash as long as they properly understand the design decisions, tradeoffs, and can make a well-informed decision.
If users are properly utilizing z2z-only it can be an extremely powerful tool!
If there was a set-in-stone date for the code to be released under MIT, then fine we can take that as a working assumption. Please let me know when that is. If the situation is “the code will be MIT eventually, maybe, who knows,” then that’s the status quo of no other project reasonably being able to use the code. There’s zero difference in practice.
BOSL blog post has been up for more almost 2 years and that halo would be BOSL has been decided for a long time. If you had any technical concerns regarding the license you had enough time to bring them up here. Doing this 15 days before the biggest network update seems malicious.
The code is not patented. You are welcome to do a clean-room re-implementation yourself if you have the technical expertise to do it. Why come begging here where you can’t write a single positive thing about Zcash on twitter?
Wait for MIT code and be grateful it is coming instead of trolling here.
I did not know of the new licensing until 3wks ago, and spent time digging in before opening this thread.
I do not stay intimately involved with Zcash’s licensing efforts, and have never heard of BOSL before (as it seems many in Zcash have never heard of it) so there was a lot of digging that had to be done.
I opened this as soon as I came to grips with what BOSL seems to be and what it means for other FOSS projects like Monero, and in order to get clarity on those topics.
No one is “begging” for anything; if the code is available as an option, then the MRL can consider using it. If it’s locked behind a restrictive license, and if the Monero project wants to use the Halo 2 code, then Monero’s devs will just write their own C++ code that does a similar thing. No one is going to wait around for an MIT license that may not even happen.
Then if Monero wants to use the code (see my point above You are not Monero, but you seem to be assuming some kind of official capacity. Who authorised you to issue any proposals on behalf of Monero community? ) and when it becomes MIT-licenced, simply come back here and say thank you instead of starting shitstorms right now
on twitter you already said that you can or will rewrite the code in C++ go ahead and do that!
you are begging, or why are you still writing arguments in here?
the licence is 100% clear!
Can @sethforprivacy or @sgp explain this to the community?
To what extent is this a proposal? The question is: “Can the ECC make a “special exemption” for the Monero Project.” See title. The ECC has the legal power to do this unilaterally with 0 community input if it wanted to.
So if you aren’t here propose or ask for anything, why are the two of you wasting our time?
No, you asked ECC and got sent here. You also got told to wait for MIT re-licence, which most likely you will also try to twist into “Zcash is against open source” because you weren’t given what you wanted immediately.
.
