Value Preserving License vs perpetual $whine

a nice lil $whine about forum config

First of all I would like to note that I absolutely could have just used the earlier thread located here

But in order to prevent posts being necroed, posts magically close after 14 days on this here forum, despite the fact that conversations here have years long time lines.

I would like to ask @zaki_iqlusion from sommelier how he’s feeling about this vintage and if there should be an appropriate matching shit coin.

value Preserving License

I believe that the hub is faced with a real shit or get off the pot moment. Currently, really really valuable software maintained primarily by informal systems, with funding from Cosmos hub governance, Will soon be used by ethos. Keep in mind I currently side with ethos on this matter. The license is very clear, our license is intended to preserve their right to use it.

I don’t really think that’s the right license though, not as somebody whose company still holds a bunch of atom.

I think that there are two possible solutions here:

  1. value Preserving License

This would be a license that allows others wishing to become ICS producers or providers or parents or doms or subs but wish to be unaffiliated with the hub, to make a governance proposal on the hub stating their desired terms And, if the community approves, be granted the right to use the ICS and/ or mega blocks software.

I wish to note that this is my favorite route for the approval of new hub users of the software. I think it would actually be great and that we might be able to come up with some really collaborative creative and innovative ways of working that really haven’t been explored yet because the infrastructure for them did not yet exist.

We built the infrastructure for that and should be proud of that.

  1. negotiation of terms using governance without changing the license

While I’m aware that this could work just from a social standards perspective due to my high opinion of people like @bez And other members of the ethos team, this is a one-off solution that would require a lot of off-chain negotiation.


addendum

I just want to make clear that at this time I am 100% in support of ethos using the software under its current license. The time to do this was September 2023 or maybe earlier, but we failed to do anything about it, and other teams noted the excellence of the software and wanted to use it under the terms that it is licensed under.

If we look the situation up and down, this is the definition of perfectly fine, totally legal, and okay.

However because we are funding this software directly from the hub community pool, I want to make really clear that I believe that the hub will generate maximum value for the hub’s stakeholders if and only we adopt my proposed solution number one.

no really I can be and do anything I want

The main response to my earlier post centered around Jacob you are not a lawyer.

Yeah that’s true, you know I have the credentials of a history teacher.

Barely I suppose, since it’s just a bachelor’s degree, but whatever.

I’m not a security researcher, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a software engineer, there’s absolutely no credentialing program for being a CEO, so maybe I’m not a CEO, but you know what I’m going to do all those things anyway and I don’t care.

So part of this post, which yes spans multiple topics, admonishes members of the Cosmos community who were to worried about my lack of a law degree to take action on protecting hub assets.

But let’s be real: we didn’t protect hub assets and by doing nothing we said very clearly that it’s okay to use them without paying us or even asking governance.

Now we are where we are and there’s NOTHING wrong with ethos using that code. The reality is that our current license actually encourages people like @bez to use it. Under our current terms I am happy to see the code evolving. That’s what the current license is for.

Oh, somebody other than ethos could use that code too, and they could use it for whatever they want to, and I would support it based on the simple fact that that’s how we licensed the code.

But maybe if we as a community got off of our credential admiring asses and got to work, we could come up with really incredible arrangements with other communities that benefit the hub and benefit the other communities.

That would just be a beautiful thing.

1 Like

I do want to add, if ethos goes and uses this work, under our perfectly normal, credentialed apache 2.0 license that needs no legal review, that is totally fine.

Instead of softly complaining about this situation, I suggest that we create efficient, mutually beneficial licensing terms that will grow the ICS user base and encourage its further refinement.

By the way I’m aware that my first post is a little bit of a discombobulated rant. I plan to collect feedback here, and attempt to write a governance proposal that brings Gaia revenue over the next week.

REVENUE FOR THE HUB IS GOOD

(Isn’t this obvious!?)

STREAMLINED PRODUCER CHAIN ONBOARDING AND SOFTWARE ADOPTION ARE GOOD

(isn’t this obvious?)