Which part of maidsafe is proprietary?


#1

I read somewhere some parts are patented.

which part? so maidsafe is like Oracle’s Java !openJDK?

Also if the project goes the dictatorship way,like ethereum and zcash it is not possible to fork?


#2

The patents are held by the foundation, and are defensive, so that no-one can patent the technology and prohibit anyone from using it.

You should probably read more into ethereum and zcash if you believe they can’t be forked, because both can and both have already been forked.

Safenet will also be able to be forked, as one of its licences is GPL v3.


#3

For all consumer stuff, yes some parts are patented (and these are held defensively by a foundation), but also GPL, so as long as folks stay free software in the core libraries there is zero problem. There are a few technology parts for enterprises that are patented (authentication that allows companies to “control” staff access etc.) and these cna be licensed to corporations and enterprises. They do not and cannot affect consumers though.

The patents in consumer area cover self auth, self encryption and more, all of these can be found in the code base and folks using that are protected from not only us (as we made it GPL) but anyone else as our patents are pretty wide ranging.

In terms of dictatorial leadership, I don’t see that in SAFE at all, or in other projects (I am not close to them though). I would hope that never happens, but feel sure the community would tell us to sod off :slight_smile: and do it themselves (with my help and the help of probably most of our Engineers) through forks (of the code no even the network, you can keep the same network and just take over development if anyone went rogue).


#4

yeah I’ve checked out ethereum class and Zclassic

as far as I am concern both of them are 100% opensource no patents


#5

This is good and if able to be used as prior art then even better. The problem I have is patents in general, they are horrible, but they can sink you. So we patented a wide area so that not only is our code 100% free software (GPL3) but also beyond that is as well. I explained this a while back as you invent a very clever blockchian algorithm (for example) and somebody finds an arguably logical step forward (more efficient, safer etc.) and somebody then sees this patents it and effectively stops your code going there now.

It should not happen if the step that got patented is not “novel” but if you see what some patent jurisdictions consider “novel” like one click, rounded phone bevels and more than it’s a rotten problem. So for us in a new area we patented things like “ability to log into a completely decentralised network”. So if a clever dev makes our auth better then it’s covered and protected by the horrible and should not be required, patents.

We could have said, who cares, were doing it anyway and ignore patents, or beat them at their own game, we chose (at great cost) the latter and now I feel no dev will be subject to patent trolls in regard to login to decentralised networks. So hopefully we all win.

Infuriating it is that way and we had to do this, but it is what it is and until humanity wakens up, we have done our bit to protect people taking our work and improving it.


#6

Oh, maybe I have read your post a bit in the wrong way. I thought you meant they went the dictatorship way. I think I get it now :slight_smile:


#7

humanity does woke up in some parts of the world (I guess)


#8

They even patent life! You can patent an ordinary tomato, if you will. Thats how evil this whole patent system is. You did good.


#9

Great that the city embraces openess. Openess is a commons, a saftynet. There was that little quip about a society with a safety net. Society is a safety net, that is its primary utility. There was a bit of a propagandistic bent do I didn’t make it all the way through.

Noticing the Intel mission statement: we create value for our stockholders, customers and society. Totally upside down value system but I think its been there a long time, and its weak to the extent that only a state coddled firm could survive with it.


#10

To further supplement David’s response, I think the following interview gives a good overview of our attitudes to patents and why we have them.