This is the last post @Dan made under the account @dantheman ,
which was "deleted" but lives in the blockchain.

https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/making-steem-really-open-source
https://steemd.com/tx/3b205c4416376e13722ddea0fb26a10aa83ecfdc

"
https://abi-laboratory.pro/images/opensource1.png
There seems to be some confusion regarding the nature of the license as [discussed](https://steemit.com/steem/@demotruk/petition-to-demand-steem-be-made-open-source) by @sneak and this confusion is not helping anyone involved.
> Copyright (c) 2017 Steemit, Inc., and contributors.
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>
>1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer >in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>3. The currency symbols, 'STEEM' and 'SBD' are not changed and no new currency symbols are added.
>4. The STEEMIT_INIT_PUBLIC_KEY_STR is not changed from STM8GC13uCZbP44HzMLV6zPZGwVQ8Nt4Kji8PapsPiNq1BK153XTX,
>and the software is not modified in any way that would bypass the need for the corresponding private to start a new blockchain.
>5. The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.
So under these rules if someone produces a variation on the code that would result in a fork of the Steem blockchain the witnesses are not allowed to run it without permission of Steemit, Inc.
Any claims made by @sneak that the witnesses get to decide to run what they want are either:
1. Wrong
2. Officially Recognized changes by Steemit, Inc
Since he is posting from a personal account and not from a corporate account, such as @steemitblog, we can presume that he is wrong.
In this case it means that Steemit, Inc can block any change it wants. Steemit has also pursued patents on various aspects of the technology and has made no commitment to use said patents for defensive use only (if someone sues Steemit).
I have long stated that I believe all IP to be a government granted privilege enforced by violence and not a natural right. It was conceived to control freedom of speech and must violate freedom of speech to be enforced.
[Against Intellectual Monopoly](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm)
In the past I have supported licenses under the theory that they only apply to those who believe in IP and that everyone who rejects the concept is free to use it. I have considered IP claims to be null and void among liberty minded individuals and companies.
Any company that must resort to government force to defend its "IP" is an aggressor.
At this point Steemit, Inc has launched the chain, established network effect, and has not attempted to enforce the license. Because of the license it did collect a hefty licensing fee from Golos and secured a share drop on Steem / Steemit. Should Steem continue to extort license fees from other clones or should it open up the license?
All these terms simply hold back innovation and limit our freedoms. It is time to let the code be free and make a commitment to only produce BSD or MIT licensed code going forward. I will never again write software that isn't BSD / MIT from the day I conceive it to the day it is released.
"