I can understand @gubatron frustration. OB wants decentralization/security hence the interest in maidsafe but also want forking and open sourcing their own code. I think OB and maidsafe are the perfect match honestly but I just feel like it’s in OB’s best interest as the newcomer to such a slowly matured emerging technology to compromise in some way or find a work around because of what is gained. I truly hope this is resolved though.
4 Likes
Maybe, but why are they not looking to build on the SAFE network…with all it’s additional functionality, including SAFEcoin
Ok…here’s my clause for any private contracts: “If the project intends to utilize a cryptocurrency, then SAFEcoin must be the protocol that is utilized for this purpose”
That would sort the projects that are truly about decentralization, from the one’s that are more about the Blockchain, centralization and it’s overlaying cryptocurrencies. The project gets it’s network, ProjectSAFE see’s it’s utility enhanced.
Ok, I’m ready…shoot away 
7 Likes
Absolutely @chrisfostertv i agree. I could understand wanting to use the code for the legacy Internet but honestly why not use the api and build on the safe network as an alternative. I second your questioning
4 Likes
Wondering here if @gubatron is busy or just no longer responding here (re my questions above)?
In the mean time here’s an interesting article from Red Hat on their licensing choices, and why they favour Apache 2.0 and also eschew Contributor License Agreements (CLAs).
May be of interest to you @nicklambert
1 Like
Because the Maidsafe network doesn’t exist. It’s a bunch of machine parts siting on a garage floor that haven’t been assembled. OB has an existing proof-of-concept that’s simple to execute on a local machine. Why would they exclusively build their system on top of a non-existent system at this point in time?
It’s not a knock against Maidsafe. They’re two groups doing two different things that function very similarly. I can’t imagine porting OB to Maidsafe is very difficult, and if Maidsafe has any probability of success, I’m sure they’ve discussed it. Open Bazaar’s development can only help Maidsafe and vice versa.
1 Like
SAFEproject seems to be a little different from many ‘Open Source’ projects, in that the future of the code is mostly in the hands of ‘POD’s’ who are competing for a pool of SAFEcoin.
Nice article though, look forward to some feedback on it here.
So pre-launch, no traction…SAFE licencing should be put on a plate and handed to Bitcoin outfits.
For the same reason they want to build on top of the Maidsafe DHT layer, belief in the technology.
Sure can, they get to use the DHT library and the SAFEcoin currency…mutual benefit.
1 Like
sorry I did not answer before, I’ve been quite busy actually 
What I wanted to do with the code was to use your kademlia routing implementation, in our case, we don’t mind keeping the source open, but the thing is that we’re also building a tools other may use for purposes unknown to us.
Our case is particular, I’m using Maidsafe’s code to create an open tool, however, our users will be using our tool for commercial purposes and that is seen by me as a licensing conflict given the licensing model of Maidsafe.
But even if they were willing to let OpenBazaar get away without having to ask its users to pay Maidsafe for a license… then there’s the issue in which we know our implementation will need to be extended for professional/enterprise use by companies that will not have in their best interest to open their implementation, and not necessarily because they’re evil bastards that don’t want to share, but because they’re very likely to extend our implementation to interface with propietary systems that have to deal with company internals, things that they don’t want to expose, and that frankly we really don’t care about… so why force anyone to open their code. …the irrealistic GPL.
What is the thinking behind utilizing the network layer, rather than building on the SAFEnetwork itself?
My opinion of OB’s move to utilize the network layer have been harsh, without knowing the motives, maybe you could clear that up.
1 Like
Harsh? OP guy saying “irrealistic GPL,” in the general sense, sounds pretty arrogant.
2 Likes
Or we can just let those companies die off and be replaced by decentralized entities like DAOs.
2 Likes
Thanks for posting the link @happybeing, having spoken to a couple of senior people from both Open Source and proprietary companies I’ve found that Apache 2.0 is a well liked license, its permissiveness and clauses about IP are liked by corporates and other Open Source companies.
3 Likes
Thanks @gubatron I can understand the situation much better now.
So the question for MaidSafe Foundation, I think this is really their decision, though with community input of course, is what is in the best interests of ProjectSAFE and other foundation goals.
Is GPL inherently good and part of those goals? And if so, what would the benefit be of letting that go in this use case, which obviously will depend on the nature of the licensing deal reached?
I speculate that money is not going to be the compensation here, so I’m interested to see how OB will could return value. Can anyone see potential benefits to ProjectSAFE from OB incorporating this functionality.
I see they may feed back improvements into that part of the code base, but there’s no obligation for them to do so, and if they aren’t using the network itself, it’s actually a cost to them with little incentive.
Any other possible benefits?
1 Like
“I speculate that money is not going to be the compensation here, so I’m interested to see how OB will could return value.”
If we were to succeed in our efforts, I believe value would be returned in:
Possibly tens of millions of nodes added to the network.
Code.
3 Likes
So you start a thread here, but avoid questions that are directed at you in regard your motivations.
You can do all the negotiations you like behind the scenes, but at the end of the day, you need to front up to the community here and engage in dialogue.
Your reasoning so far is less than expected from an outfit that is slated to take the decentralized world by storm…apparently.
.
3 Likes
and you sound like a troll.
Sorry we’re too busy working.
I think I’ve explained plenty why maidsafe isn’t going anywhere with the GPL.
HTTP vs Gopher should be a sufficient example of how protocols thrive and die due to licensing decisions.
This is of course assuming you don’t lose clients to a competitor that builds an alternative openbazzar built natively on SAFE and uses safecoin. Your concept can easily be duplicated.
1 Like
Well lets everyone calm down.
I think @gubatron, that if you’ve made your point and you have nothing further to say that perhaps this thread should wind up. We can continue the discussion of the theoretical benefits of certain licensing schemes elsewhere, but perhaps removed from the specific context of Open Bazaar.
Its important to remember that we don’t have different goals. We all share similar ideals about freedom, liberty, the need for open source development, and the need to move away from the strategic weaknesses both technical and moral of over-centralization. We want to empower smaller players, create sustainable systems, all that good stuff.
What we disagree about are the functional steps to achieve those goals. The problem is that NO ONE can be sure which licensing scheme will do this best. The smartest economists and technologists and lawyers in the world can’t come to an agreement on what legal framework will best advance those goals, and I don’t think we are going to solve what is in essence a factual problem here on this forum.
Now we do have specific core use-cases which do differ, and which we are personally committed to. I hope that you can accept that the core use-cases which motivated most of us to join this community are very different from the B2B vision which animates Open Bazaar. Thats ok, in fact in the context of the larger community thats great.
You’ve made some good points, and if my use-case were an Open Bazaar style project I think I would agree, but GPL protects my core use-cases better than MIT and so while I recognize the strength of your arguments from your position, they don’t move me.
As a member of this community, my request to @gubatron is that if you see value added in the functionality of the SAFE network, please don’t walk away because of the general licensing scheme. Get involved, make friends, see if you can’t come to some kind of arrangement with the MaidSafe foundation. As I’ve said above, I think the projects have a lot of common goals and an exception could be made in your case.
But the question posed by this thread is “Are you dead set on GPL3?”
I think that question, from the perspective of the community on this forum, has been answered. (EDIT: I stand corrected see, @russell’s post below).
1 Like
Hey man, calm yourself down to a frenzy 
It’s a conversation of different projects with very similar core visions (perhaps) working in different areas (b2b b2c) there will be differences. It is hard to say which is best, nobody has answered that ever, did bsd help bsd in commercial - yes - did it help that community - not much, what about linux and its GPL, well perhaps there are more linux companies than bsd.
This community has a voice as I am sure OB does as well, nobody is saying who is right and who is wrong,in the words of Christie Moore
Hey man is it left or right for Gibraltar
None of us know!
At this time we are GPL and wish to stay that way until there is a compelling reason not to be, this was good as it is a reasoned query, but does not in itself constitute a fundamental change. The world is changing and OSS is growing in strength and with the recent NSA etc. revelations, closed source is suffering a bit more so who knows?
I have debated this since 1995 and heard more compelling GPL stories than bsd/apache, however on each side there are extreme views, I think that has not been the case here, but passion is obvious and I love passion, on both sides. I would say the answer to your query seems like, yes we are dead set on GPL for the foreseeable future. You can have a commercial license though if people want closed source capability, there are many ways to make that work for sure.
Lets see how it all pans out, but stay friendly in doing so, all this is educational for everyone I am sure.
6 Likes
… @gubatron is being so incredibly clear imo. @chrisfostertv, you’re coming off a bit aggressive. I guess both sides are. Seems everyone here is pretty passionate.
There’s a certain level of irony in the prevailing mentality here. To tie it back to entertainment, there seems to be an overwhelming belief that entertainment and art should be given away for free and people should donate whatever they want to consume, and resuse, remix, and recycle, etc. Many here seem to dislike the idea of IP and patents. But now that we’re talking about code (possibly because people here bought maidsafecoins and feel invested), everyone wants the legal protection and control (insofar that you’re legally requiring people keep their code open). That could be seen as hypocritical. Could also be seen as fighting fire with fire for a cause.
I disagree. I think he makes an incredibly strong argument. The more I’m reading about GPL3, the less I agree with it.
2 Likes