According to one interview the use of the GPL version 3 infection by aggregation within the MaidSafe is not an accident, but a deliberate decision to make sure that closed source software has to pay to store/retrieve data from the SAFE Network. I first thought accidentally that the development payment side was covered by inflating the storage capacity sales related safecoins in the favor of the “central bank”, the MaidSafe investors, including the venture capitalists and I found even that to be pretty dubious, because the moment there is a “central bank” that all of the money system is designed to pay profit to, then from security point of view it’s only a matter of time, till someone else sets up its own “central bank” and then there will be a set of “central bank” analogues on the network that earn at the expense of those users of the network that do not run their own “central bank”. I emphasize that I distinguish the “central bank” from “farming”. According to my opinion it’s fair, if sotrage space is sold, but the original authors and “investors” (read: more sophisticated loan sharks) should not get themselves an forever-milking cache cow that gives milk as long as the network is up. If on top of that one has to PAY to the investors for using the network in some specific use cases, like closed source software, then that’s like insult on top of an injury.
Neither am I capable of seeing, how can a solution, where the original authors of the crypto-freedom-software USE LAWYERS and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW to EXTORT MONEY from some of the users of their software to be in line with the crypto-freedom SPIRIT. If something is meant to be FREE, then AS A MATTER OF PHILOSOPHY it is not possible to limit some users from using it, irrespective of their use case, business model, philosophy, action.
Thank You for reading my comment.
P.S. I am very biased, because my pet project is Silktorrent.