Nxt Forum

Nxt Discussion => Nxt General Discussion => Topic started by: mikecorleone on August 25, 2015, 05:46:04 am

Title: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: mikecorleone on August 25, 2015, 05:46:04 am
Hey everyone,

We are part of a startup company that's forking nxt at 8cd423eee becaise the MIT license suits us better. Since the license changed to GPL, we've been thinking about making this announcement for the last few months and finally decided to pull the pin on this post today. It's a friendly fork in the sense that nxt will be able to pull our changes once we release them but obviously the converse isn't true. Our knowledge of nxt is solely based on the source code and are not clear on why the license changed or followed any discussions about the issue in the forum, but if there is any interest in going back to MIT we'd certainly be pleased with that outcome.

Although we plan to add a feature and remove one or two that we are skeptical about, most of what we are doing is testing nxt and trying to break it, in the interests of creating greater robustness in the system. So if you are a developer and ascribe value to this work, we hope you will license your commits as a MIT, and we will try as best as possible to reconcile those commits with our tree without violating anyone's GPL code.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Damelon on August 25, 2015, 07:17:25 am
The change to GPL came about as a result of discussions we have had with businesses who were interested in Nxt.

The change reflects our commitment to our code and its integrity.

You are still free to fork the code as long as you do not represent the code taken as your own work.

Jean-Luc has posted about this here: https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/notice-to-nxt-clone-creators/

You are also not allowed to sell the code to third parties without permission.

None of this is strange, as the work that would be sold is the work of others. You can obviously sell your own code.

More info: https://nxtforum.org/nxt-helpdesk/nxt-license/msg185394/#msg185394
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-and-the-open-source-free-software-movement/

Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: v39453 on August 25, 2015, 08:12:56 am
You are also not allowed to sell the code to third parties without permission.

Yes you are, at least that is the idea of the GPL. But you are required to provide source code on subsequent request.

 

Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Jean-Luc on August 25, 2015, 09:57:43 am
We are part of a startup company that's forking nxt at 8cd423eee becaise the MIT license suits us better. Since the license changed to GPL...
Starting from this commit would be a copyright violation. The last release done under MIT was 1.5.6e, dated 2015-04-28. It was also a closed source release, meaning you have to base your work on that closed source (i.e. a decompiled and deobfuscated version of it).

Releases 1.5.7e and 1.5.8e were done under a temporary experimental releases license, which prohibits their use, or the use of any software based on them, after June 30, 2015. The MIT license never applied to those releases, only to parts of them already published in previous versions.

Release 1.5.9 was the first release done under the GPL, on 2015-05-26, and the first publication of the 1.5 branch source code. No 1.5 source code has been released before that date, and no 1.5 source code has been released under a license other than the GPL. You cannot look back at the commit log and decide by those dates which change is under GPL and which is not, because none of that source was released to the public until the date of release of 1.5.9, and at that time it was all released under GPL.

To make my point more obvious, if I start writing some software from scratch, and only add the GPL license file at the end, and then publish it all, you cannot just go read the timestamps on each commit and argue that the GPL does not apply to the files committed before the addition of the LICENSE.txt file. This is essentially what you are trying to do. Those intermediate commits were never pushed one by one to the public master branch, as we never publish the source of experimental releases. When the source is finally published, it is published together with the license that applies to it, and it applies to the source as a whole, regardless of the commit timestamp on each individual file.

Quote
So if you are a developer and ascribe value to this work, we hope you will license your commits as a MIT, and we will try as best as possible to reconcile those commits with our tree without violating anyone's GPL code.
The work of core developers is accepted only under GPL, there will be no more "MIT commits" to the core.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Jean-Luc on August 25, 2015, 10:00:16 am
You are also not allowed to sell the code to third parties without permission.

Yes you are, at least that is the idea of the GPL. But you are required to provide source code on subsequent request.
You are allowed to sell it of course. But you are required not only to provide source code, you are required to provide it under the GPL too. And this was probably the most important reason why we switched to the GPL.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: mikecorleone on August 25, 2015, 10:55:42 am
Okay. We thought that the commit immediately prior to the GPL License addition would be fine. It's really no skin off our back to wind back a few more weeks. We will fork from: c22b64bb6a3e805b3bc9d78ec96e44f96030a0a3 instead. Thanks for the clarification. In fact, we've already merged our changes in c22b64.

Quote
The work of core developers is accepted only under GPL, there will be no more "MIT commits" to the core.

That's too bad. Well, if any developers are keen to contribute to an MIT codebase, we'd love to hear from you.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interest in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Jean-Luc on August 25, 2015, 11:16:22 am
Okay. We thought that the commit immediately prior to the GPL License addition would be fine. It's really no skin off our back to wind back a few more weeks. We will fork from: c22b64bb6a3e805b3bc9d78ec96e44f96030a0a3 instead.
No, you cannot do that either. This is the commit just before the release of 1.5.7e, when I prepare the package for release and make the license change from MIT to experimental. Making a commit to a private branch does not constitute publication. A release of the source code constitutes publication. While working on a release, many commits are done, the order in which they are done is not relevant, what matters is the release package, signed with my GPG key. Just because I have committed the license change last does not mean it does not apply to previous commits that were released together within the same release.

The last source code release that you can use under MIT is 1.4.18. The source code of the 1.5 branch has never been published under the MIT, the 1.5.6e just like all other 1.5-experimental releases was closed source. When the source code of 1.5 branch was published, it was published under the GPL. The fact that the Git version control system allows you to look back into the history and see source of previous versions or individual commits, does not make this source released under a different license. Source was not released with any 1.5 version until 1.5.9, therefore 1.5 source was never released under a license other than the GPL.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: maddy83 on August 25, 2015, 11:24:10 am
The change to GPL came about as a result of discussions we have had with businesses who were interested in Nxt.

I would like to hear more about this. Which businesses, and what was the nature of their interest?
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: mikecorleone on August 25, 2015, 11:36:57 am
We may try to accommodate you as a courtesy but you are in error. All branches are private until you publish them and then they become public. The commit is fine to use as it is published with an MIT license. It's very clear: github.com/nxt-ext/nxt/tree/c22b64bb6a3e805b3bc9d78ec96e44f96030a0a3

BTW, thanks to the person above who posted the link to this thread: https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/notice-to-nxt-clone-creators/. This is the first we've heard of HZ / NeXTHorizon. If anyone else is interested in collaborating on an MIT licensed codebase, someone else has already made a start on that here: github.com/NeXTHorizon/hz-source
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Cassius on August 25, 2015, 11:39:58 am
Hi Mike, interested to hear more about what you're doing. People might also be able to chip in with helpful suggestions too.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Jean-Luc on August 25, 2015, 11:46:14 am
What I publish I sign with my GPG key. Show me a GPG signed copy of Nxt 1.5 source code under a license other than GPL.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Damelon on August 25, 2015, 12:24:15 pm
Hey everyone,

We are part of a startup company that's forking nxt at 8cd423eee becaise the MIT license suits us better. Since the license changed to GPL, we've been thinking about making this announcement for the last few months and finally decided to pull the pin on this post today.

By the way, can you tell us why the MIT fits you better than GPL? That kind of information is always interesting and good to have :)

Is it the fact that under MIT you can close source any modifications?

For reference, I include this nice comparison, for those who are interested in the MIT and GPL licenses: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3902754/mit-vs-gpl-license
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: EvilDave on August 25, 2015, 01:01:01 pm

BTW, thanks to the person above who posted the link to this thread: https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/notice-to-nxt-clone-creators/. This is the first we've heard of HZ / NeXTHorizon. If anyone else is interested in collaborating on an MIT licensed codebase, someone else has already made a start on that here: github.com/NeXTHorizon/hz-source

Yup, check out Horizon if you want to fork off your own version of Nxt under the MIT license........but if you want to work within the Nxt community, talk to us first, please. One of the reasons to switch to a GPL license was that it allows us slightly more control over how Nxt is used, which will (hopefully) encourage projects like yours, mc, to work with the existing Nxt community.

Which brings me to:

The change to GPL came about as a result of discussions we have had with businesses who were interested in Nxt.

I would like to hear more about this. Which businesses, and what was the nature of their interest?

I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you afterwards. Sorry.  8)
I can tell you that we have been in talks with someone (or someones) to license Nxt technology to them to allow the setup of a completely separate single purpose blockchain, based on Nxt, for their own projects. Income generated from this licensing deal would be fed back into the Nxt community, probably via the Nxt Foundation. 
Have a look at this discussion:
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/re-%28core%29-white-label-blockchain/

So, keeping it simple: if anyone wants to run their own private Nxt blockchain, we'll be happy to help out, with a few restrictions.
@mc: you can get in touch with myself or Damelon to discuss this further...... :) 
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Jean-Luc on August 25, 2015, 03:24:29 pm
Sure you can go fork HZ, but this doesn't change the fact that using any 1.5 Nxt code requires putting your project (or HZ itself, if they decide to use 1.5 and later Nxt code) under GPL, unless you make a specific licensing deal with the copyright holders (me and the other core Nxt developers). And while you can negotiate such a deal with us, you can't do that with the HZ developers, because any 1.5 Nxt codebase incorporated in a future HZ release would still requires the derivative work to be under GPL.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: maddy83 on August 25, 2015, 05:16:40 pm
I can tell you that we have been in talks with someone (or someones) to license Nxt technology to them to allow the setup of a completely separate single purpose blockchain, based on Nxt, for their own projects.

Ok, not very interesting for NXT holders then. Would have been much more interesting if the company used NXT blockchain. :)
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: nexTry on August 25, 2015, 06:19:36 pm
No, you cannot do that either. This is the commit just before the release of 1.5.7e, when I prepare the package for release and make the license change from MIT to experimental. Making a commit to a private branch does not constitute publication. A release of the source code constitutes publication. While working on a release, many commits are done, the order in which they are done is not relevant, what matters is the release package, signed with my GPG key. Just because I have committed the license change last does not mean it does not apply to previous commits that were released together within the same release.

The last source code release that you can use under MIT is 1.4.18. The source code of the 1.5 branch has never been published under the MIT, the 1.5.6e just like all other 1.5-experimental releases was closed source. When the source code of 1.5 branch was published, it was published under the GPL. The fact that the Git version control system allows you to look back into the history and see source of previous versions or individual commits, does not make this source released under a different license. Source was not released with any 1.5 version until 1.5.9, therefore 1.5 source was never released under a license other than the GPL.

Sorry to say this, but for me  this makes you look like plastering the code with easter eggs. In the past  a software author and some others had a discussion about his  software which originally had a GPL-License acompanied with the code. Later the source code archive were removed to push hardware sales. The discussion ended that he could call himself <censored> for  publishing the software 'errorously' under GPL. Do you really thing such situations should solved by declaring the software archive as private nonsigned  branch?

What if someone make a derivative work of NXT (honouring the Implications of the GPL) but  publishing the software only in a private branch and when you want to incorporate the changes into NXT you get a 'Sorry Jean Luc, yes ist copyrigthed by the GPL, yes you can read it, but no you can't  merge it because its not an offical signed release'?

While this  discussion may look academic for nxt and in fact i hope there are no developers that wan't to go the route  via a court i see a lot of problem with other orivate repositories, namely for a lot of device drivers etc. that in some cases  never made it into the  offical release.



Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: bcdev on August 25, 2015, 07:48:46 pm
Sorry to say this, but for me  this makes you look like plastering the code with easter eggs. In the past  a software author and some others had a discussion about his  software which originally had a GPL-License acompanied with the code. Later the source code archive were removed to push hardware sales.
NRS is not a hardware driver that can be closed. Your example is incorrect. If Jean-Luc ever declares NRS as close-source project, it'll be his last day as a project leader. [NRS would fork and he'd be the only man contributing, everyone else would go to the fork.]

Quote
While this  discussion may look academic for nxt and in fact i hope there are no developers that wan't to go the route  via a court i see a lot of problem with other orivate repositories, namely for a lot of device drivers etc. that in some cases  never made it into the  offical release.
Once again - device driver is a bad analogy. Look at NRS like an OpenOffice. Oracle decided to make changes that angried people -> OpenOffice forked into LibreOffice -> nobody uses OpenOffice anymore, everyone migrated to LibreOffice.
I can give you countless examples of projects that forked because of bad management. It's impossible to close NRS without loosing users.

Quote
What if someone make a derivative work of NXT (honouring the Implications of the GPL) but  publishing the software only in a private branch and when you want to incorporate the changes into NXT you get a 'Sorry Jean Luc, yes ist copyrigthed by the GPL, yes you can read it, but no you can't  merge it because its not an offical signed release'?
Can you elaborate? I don't understand the problem you're trying to describe. GPL is compatible with GPL no matter which repository it comes from.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: jl777 on August 25, 2015, 08:03:29 pm
Sorry to say this, but for me  this makes you look like plastering the code with easter eggs. In the past  a software author and some others had a discussion about his  software which originally had a GPL-License acompanied with the code. Later the source code archive were removed to push hardware sales. The discussion ended that he could call himself <censored> for  publishing the software 'errorously' under GPL. Do you really thing such situations should solved by declaring the software archive as private nonsigned  branch?

What if someone make a derivative work of NXT (honouring the Implications of the GPL) but  publishing the software only in a private branch and when you want to incorporate the changes into NXT you get a 'Sorry Jean Luc, yes ist copyrigthed by the GPL, yes you can read it, but no you can't  merge it because its not an offical signed release'?

While this  discussion may look academic for nxt and in fact i hope there are no developers that wan't to go the route  via a court i see a lot of problem with other orivate repositories, namely for a lot of device drivers etc. that in some cases  never made it into the  offical release.
"easter eggs"? It seems that you are trolling to try to convince people to make NXT not GPL and what does some unrelated software/hardware incident have to do with NXT being GPL from MIT license. The old 1.4 branch is MIT, just use that if you want MIT license.

GPL is a proven effective license that allows the propagation of software and requires derivative works to also be open source. If you have problems with this, it indicates that you want to be able to monetize it by repackaging it and maybe even keeping it closed source.

Granted you can try, but there are many well funded organizations that do the dirty work of going to the legal systems against lawbreaking companies. There is no need for the devs to spend time pursuing companies that infringe.

NXT devs have created an amazing system from scratch. The least others can do is honor their wishes as to how they want their software licensed.

Your choice is simple. Use an outdated, obsolete 1.4 branch that wont ever be improved by the NXT devs to be able to use MIT license, or to GPL whatever derivative work you want to make. The cost to pay for using the most up to date and continually enhanced NXT, is to comply with GPL. There is no financial cost. You feel that it is unreasonable to pay nothing to be able to create derivative works?

James
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Jean-Luc on August 25, 2015, 08:10:55 pm
None of the 1.5.0e through 1.5.8e releases had source code included in them. Those were binary only, experimental releases.

While working on the 1.5 branch, the developers discussed many licensing options for the upcoming stable 1.5 release, and ultimately settled on the GPL. No source code was released until this decision was made. While those discussions were going on, of course we were also busy writing code, and a lot of those code was committed to our PRIVATE repository before the legalese license files were added. This cannot be taken to imply that those commits were not intended to be under GPL. When the 1.5 branch was finally ready for a stable release, it was released under GPL, and only then the full source code was included in the release package.

Yes, Nxt does use a private repository for development and only releases code when ready. The public master branch is only updated after a release is made, and at that time all intermediate commits also pushed to it. You cannot take an old commit out of context and pretend a license change does not apply to it, when chronologically this commit was made public (i.e. published) after the license change was already applied and announced.

If it would have been more clear to not have a public Git commit log at all, I could have certainly done that (and the project would still be fully open source, with the src folder present in each release package), but this would be a great inconvenience to all developers, and to those who need to see who did what change and why.

Ultimately it is the code authors that have the right to decide under what license to publish their work. The decision that 1.5 will be GPL has been publicized and discussed on this forum many times, and if it is still not clear to someone that 1.5 is GPL, now it should be.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Riker on August 25, 2015, 08:30:39 pm
As a core developer, to state the obvious, I support jean-luc. I second that the NXT code of any of the 1.5.x branches cannot be used under the MIT license. Period.

Rest assured, that the decision to switch to GPL was not taken lightly.
As a corporate developer in my day job, I learned to treat the GPL license as a threat because of its virality aspects that pretty much prevents its usage in closed source products.
However, in the case of NXT, I truly believe that the GPL usage is justified in order to make it difficult to vandalize NXT while contributing nothing in return and still maintain NXT as an open source project.

The GPL license leaves clone developers to choose between two options:
1. Release their code under GPL as well, and thus allow the NXT devs to possibly integrate back some of the derived work into the core - I can fully understand why a startup wouldn't want to choose this option.
2. License the NXT core from the NXT foundation under a commercial license and pay license, maintenance and services fee like you pay for a database or ERP product.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: jl777 on August 25, 2015, 09:44:00 pm
As a core developer, to state the obvious, I support jean-luc. I second that the NXT code of any of the 1.5.x branches cannot be used under the MIT license. Period.

Rest assured, that the decision to switch to GPL was not taken lightly.
As a corporate developer in my day job, I learned to treat the GPL license as a threat because of its virality aspects that pretty much prevents its usage in closed source products.
However, in the case of NXT, I truly believe that the GPL usage is justified in order to make it difficult to vandalize NXT while contributing nothing in return and still maintain NXT as an open source project.

The GPL license leaves clone developers to choose between two options:
1. Release their code under GPL as well, and thus allow the NXT devs to possibly integrate back some of the derived work into the core - I can fully understand why a startup wouldn't want to choose this option.
2. License the NXT core from the NXT foundation under a commercial license and pay license, maintenance and services fee like you pay for a database or ERP product.
I liked this plan so much, I just copied it for SuperNET

Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: mikecorleone on August 25, 2015, 11:47:11 pm
JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above. 

Our customers are financial institutions, we help them adopt cryptocurrencies. The reason they consider the MIT license more business friendly to the GPL is because if they create something proprietary and license it to a peer institution they don't want to have to track down every single contributor to a project and license their contributions to the project, any of whom could hold out. Let's face it, this isn't something nxt is doing today. If some business entity were to license the code as non GPL from a company calling itself nxt, that licensing company would be the one violating copyright, not the other way around. Until you have a signed CLA from every single contributor donating their copyright to that company, you can't run a parallel IP licensing business. Since that tends to have a chilling effect on collaboration, this is why most serious core projects are published under the { apache, mit } license - to avoid this problem.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interested in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: jl777 on August 26, 2015, 12:11:35 am
JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above. 

Our customers are financial institutions, we help them adopt cryptocurrencies. The reason they consider the MIT license more business friendly to the GPL is because if they create something proprietary and license it to a peer institution they don't want to have to track down every single contributor to a project and license their contributions to the project, any of whom could hold out. Let's face it, this isn't something nxt is doing today. If some business entity were to license the code as non GPL from a company calling itself nxt, that licensing company would be the one violating copyright, not the other way around. Until you have a signed CLA from every single contributor donating their copyright to that company, you can't run a parallel IP licensing business. Since that tends to have a chilling effect on collaboration, this is why most serious core projects are published under the { apache, mit } license - to avoid this problem.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interested in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.
have you read the DEVELOPER-AGREEMENT?

****
4. Re-licensing.

Re-licensing of the Nxt software under a different license requires the
agreement of all copyright holders whose work is being re-licensed. To
ensure that an unreachable copyright holder cannot prevent the active
development team from making licensing decisions, each copyright holder
who leaves the development team shall provide an Nxt account number in
the AUTHORS.txt file, at which he can be contacted to discuss such
decisions. Lack of such contact info, or lack of any type of response to
a re-licensing permission request after more than 28 days, as recorded
in the Nxt blockchain, shall be interpreted as an irrevocable permission
to the then active development team to perform the specific re-licensing
for which such a permission has been sought.

****

GPL is open source, and a 28 day period in the real world licensing negotiations is not any obstacle. So if you need some custom NXT variant, it is a matter to pay a reasonable fee and it could even be done by the NXT devs themselves.

James
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: mikecorleone on August 26, 2015, 12:31:56 am
James, I'm afraid that the legal community takes a dim view of the one sided contract like the one you've cited there. I'll spare you a digression about the intracacies of licenses / contracts. To put it mildly, what you have cited there is insufficient to achieve the goal you are after, something I gently tried to point out in my last comment about nxt not being set up right now to do this. Anyhow, with any luck this should be my last comment on the matter.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: dude on August 26, 2015, 02:39:18 am
JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above. 

You seem to have trouble reading, no source code was published in the experimental branch of 1.5.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interested in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.

I don't understand this advertisement, why don't you rather cooperate directly with Nxt core devs instead of searching for random people?
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Jean-Luc on August 26, 2015, 04:55:01 am
JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above.
All 1.5 branch source code is published under GPL. If you try to use it under another license without my permission you will be intentionally committing a copyright violation, and will be sued. Did I make myself clear?
Title: Re: nxt fork
Post by: mikecorleone on August 26, 2015, 06:51:43 am
We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar. 







Title: Re: nxt fork
Post by: jl777 on August 26, 2015, 06:57:45 am
We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar.
Keep it GPL and honor the license, then there is no need for any legal things. Not sure what your point is, but at least you published a repo, so it is a good start.

James
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Cassius on August 26, 2015, 08:21:35 am
I'm not quite sure what happened here, but we went from zero to lawsuit in just over 24 hours.
I'm pretty sure this could have been resolved more amicably and productively for all involved. It probably still could be.
I could include some kind of impassioned plea here about needing to work together to further the crypto economy against the real enemy. Feel free to add one if that would help.
Title: Re: nxt fork
Post by: EvilDave on August 26, 2015, 08:33:47 am
We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar.

Finding it hard to see the nerd rage, tbh.

I'd like to see some reasons as to why this mysterious project has to fork Nxt in the first place, and why the concepts of working with the Nxt community in a licensing arrangement (or just releasing under GPL) are so completely unacceptable to the OP.

Still, this topic has definitely set one of the fastest idea-to-lawsuit times I've ever seen..... ;D
Title: Re: nxt fork
Post by: Damelon on August 26, 2015, 09:24:27 am
Mike,

To be blunt, you started out nicely enough, asking questions and requesting our reasons for the GPL and your wish to return to MIT.

Then, when it was explained by the very people doing the work they have their reasons for not going MIT anymore and keeping GPL, you started with immediately asking people to fork into an MIT.

That doesn't look very well intentioned, and certainly isn't polite to say the least.

Once it was clear you wouldn't get it the way you wanted it, you decided to for all intents and purposes to shut down meaningful communications by adding sentences like

Quote
That's too bad. Well, if any developers are keen to contribute to an MIT codebase, we'd love to hear from you.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interest in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.

Then when people start to get more forceful about the issue, you resort to calling it "nerd rage" and basically using semantics to say what amounts to "no, I am right and you lot are idiots".

I can fully understand you don't like it. I can understand that it makes it more difficult to do what you want to do. Fair enough.
But the provocation here is yours, not ours. The people who code Nxt have every right to put it under any license they like.

Your "best intentions" seem to be predicated on your terms be met. Starting out with "Hi, we want to work with you on the condition our terms are met" is rarely if ever a basis for negotiation.

We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: nexTry on August 26, 2015, 09:43:05 am
Sorry to say this, but for me  this makes you look like plastering the code with easter eggs. In the past  a software author and some others had a discussion about his  software which originally had a GPL-License acompanied with the code. Later the source code archive were removed to push hardware sales.
NRS is not a hardware driver that can be closed. Your example is incorrect. If Jean-Luc ever declares NRS as close-source project, it'll be his last day as a project leader. [NRS would fork and he'd be the only man contributing, everyone else would go to the fork.]

It was not a device driver. it was a MCU firmware for a hardwaregadget. Due to the fact that there are not so much people that make PCBs or wirewrap single units the source code wasn't so widespread so while there was some intrest in the community it wasn't so easy to fork.

Quote
While this  discussion may look academic for nxt and in fact i hope there are no developers that wan't to go the route  via a court i see a lot of problem with other orivate repositories, namely for a lot of device drivers etc. that in some cases  never made it into the  offical release.
Once again - device driver is a bad analogy. Look at NRS like an OpenOffice. Oracle decided to make changes that angried people -> OpenOffice forked into LibreOffice -> nobody uses OpenOffice anymore, everyone migrated to LibreOffice.
I can give you countless examples of projects that forked because of bad management. It's impossible to close NRS without loosing users.

Sure you can find alot of examples. But in this case the  source vanished into the nowhere and some pins were swapped  for improved user experience. If you  don't like the device driver example, what about some plugins for eclipse, gimp, etc?
Or some quite mature software vor VLSI design, Ecad, scintific software  that were published under various  license and vanished for (i do not wan't to speculate) reasons. I am not intrested i geting some mail some day. Sorrym can you read, the package nave states beta so it's not a offical resease and there are  companies that are selling software basing on the 'offical' but not open souced licensed software.

Quote
What if someone make a derivative work of NXT (honouring the Implications of the GPL) but  publishing the software only in a private branch and when you want to incorporate the changes into NXT you get a 'Sorry Jean Luc, yes ist copyrigthed by the GPL, yes you can read it, but no you can't  merge it because its not an offical signed release'?
Can you elaborate? I don't understand the problem you're trying to describe. GPL is compatible with GPL no matter which repository it comes from.
[/quote]
The point is, Jean Luc states, sorry, you can't go after the commit where   the checkout contains (maybe i did not check the specific snapshot ) the old MIT License file but no GPL is  that the software is copyrighted under the MIT License.

So my point is, what i some other software author  that originally published his code under a MIT licence and later when the code  comes  back from a few people who  preserved  the code. Sorry to say, you can't use this code, while there is indeed a MIT license attached it was not an offical release. There are a lot of projects where the developer don't publish offical signed releases.

I hope you se better what i mean.

While i understand the the reasons for GPLing the software i don't like such problems. When i get a software that contains a license file i expect it to be  valid. If the code   comes from public readable repository or a publicly downloadable softwarearchiv does not really matter. Code got by decompiling or hacking a private  server is  excluded of course.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: rtrtcrypto on August 26, 2015, 10:04:04 am
Really didn't like corleone's tone in this entire thread. Totally hostile take over of other people's work and abdurd passive-aggressive stance from 1st post (intentions were totally obvious).

Start a legal fund if law suit progresses, I (and others) will be happy to support part of the legal fees. NXT community will not stand for this.

Best,
R
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: bcdev on August 26, 2015, 10:32:08 am
The point is, Jean Luc states, sorry, you can't go after the commit where   the checkout contains (maybe i did not check the specific snapshot ) the old MIT License file but no GPL is  that the software is copyrighted under the MIT License.

So my point is, what i some other software author  that originally published his code under a MIT licence and later when the code  comes  back from a few people who  preserved  the code. Sorry to say, you can't use this code, while there is indeed a MIT license attached it was not an offical release. There are a lot of projects where the developer don't publish offical signed releases.

I hope you se better what i mean.

While i understand the the reasons for GPLing the software i don't like such problems. When i get a software that contains a license file i expect it to be  valid. If the code   comes from public readable repository or a publicly downloadable softwarearchiv does not really matter. Code got by decompiling or hacking a private  server is  excluded of course.
I understand your confusion.
You're talking about "checkouts". NRS is released in "releases" that are under one license [previously MIT, now GPL]. https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/
Git repository is made public only after a release is made.
I agree with core devs that the license of the "release" it's what matters, not what LICENSE file exists in a checkout for a particular commit.
If every commit was public [code is released first into the public repository like with 99% of open-source projects] the LICENSE file of the checkout would have a priority. NXT is in the other 1% which do a release first, thus LICENSE file of a particular release has priority over a checkout.

IMO forking NRS just because you don't like the license is stupid. You will have to reimplement every single feature NRS will have. Even if you'd fork from 8cd423eee [like you originally wanted to] you'd waste huge amounts of time just to stay current now and in the future. It's not worth the effort, especially since you can always negotiate for a private license.
Title: Re: nxt fork
Post by: VanBreuk on August 26, 2015, 11:26:54 am
I fail to understand why mikecorleone would name this thread "friendly" considering how it evolved. Maybe he needed to make it appear as "friendly" so the Nxt devs would appear as the "non-friendly" part of the thread.

passive-aggressive

Yes, this is quite apt.

Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: abctc on August 26, 2015, 12:35:07 pm
Start a legal fund if law suit progresses, I (and others) will be happy to support part of the legal fees. NXT community will not stand for this.
+ 1440
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: nexTry on August 26, 2015, 05:30:30 pm
I understand your confusion.
You're talking about "checkouts". NRS is released in "releases" that are under one license [previously MIT, now GPL]. https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/
Git repository is made public only after a release is made.
I agree with core devs that the license of the "release" it's what matters, not what LICENSE file exists in a checkout for a particular commit.
If every commit was public [code is released first into the public repository like with 99% of open-source projects] the LICENSE file of the checkout would have a priority. NXT is in the other 1% which do a release first, thus LICENSE file of a particular release has priority over a checkout.

I am confused,indeed. And to be honest,  NXT is the first  project where i learn about such a policy, and my concerns remain about the legal status of such a policy. But i am not intrested to go the court route at all.

I think the  'negotiate a private license' solution should be fine.

Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Frodo on August 26, 2015, 07:37:03 pm
I have never been more disappointed in the NXT community as I am after reading this thread.

It is long known that the core developers are hostile towards clones.  The legal threat made earlier brings it to a whole new level.

I am not a lawyer, and the following should be construed as my opinion on these matters, and should not be taken as legal advice.  Please contact your legal professional for specific advice.

So far, only one person in this thread has shown an understanding of copyright and contract law: the OP.  Mind you, these are topics which are covered in any 'Basic Law' course.  Of particular importance is answering the question of 'when' copyright is applied to a work.

In almost all jurisdictions, copyright is automatically granted to the author at the time of creation (or "fixed in a tangible form of expression", if you like).  Committing code to a private repository should suffice here (perhaps even earlier, but is unimportant to this discussion).  By default, this copyright grants little privileges to anyone except the author.  But, when committed to a repository in which a license is attached, that license is immediately applied to the work.  It matters not if the repository is private, nor does it matter when or if it is made public. Also, the subsequent packaging and signing of binary releases has no effect on the copyright of the original source code.  Mike has chosen a suitable commit from which to fork as MIT

In short, the developers made an error when transitioning to GPL (by continuing to copyright intermediate work under the MIT license), and has little legal ground to threaten the OP in this way.  Put the pitchforks away, fellas.

Mike, I wish you the best in your endeavors.  I apologize for the toxicity here.

(As a side mention, it would benefit the NXT community to read Mike's posts again and heed the warnings about dual-licensing and the insufficient contract which aims to misuse the work of previous contributors).


Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Damelon on August 26, 2015, 08:10:46 pm
I just love how this is changing from

"We would like to use your work, but don't like your licensing model. Can you change it?"

to

"You are legally wrong in the way you licensed your software. You made a mistake, so we now take the right to use it as we want to interpret it."

Who is creating the toxicity here?

I feel that the coders have every right to be pissed off when people take a legalese attitude to what in principle is about the way they want their software to be distributed.

The legalese part smells very much like a front to be able to reverse engineer a probable cause to use MIT, even when it is very clear (and stated unequivocally by the copyright holders) how they wish their software to be distributed.

I am frankly more than a little disgusted by the fact that there have appeared three new accounts in this thread that try to push their MIT agenda by adhering to the LETTER of the law (which is very much an interpretation, however it is presented) instead of the SPIRIT, which means that the developers have stated very clearly they wish the software to be under GPL.

This is threatening to get bogged down in a discussion about particulars instead of generalities.

Frodo, your last post is a mess, to be honest. On the one hand you quote copyright law, stating that copyright is granted at the moment of creation. Then you turn it around that by making (in your assesment) a mistake in the licensing, they forfeit rights on this. This completely misrepresents how copyright and licensing work.

You are confusing copyright per se with licensing form.

Copyright are the rights that the creator HAS.
Licensing are the rights the creator GRANTS.


Note the difference. Licensing flows FROM copyright.
http://www.majordojo.com/2010/07/license-vs-copyright.php

Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: rtrtcrypto on August 26, 2015, 08:18:31 pm
mikecorleone, glad to see you are consistent with your username themes.

Which movie character will you choose next?! Looking forward!

 ;)


I have never been more disappointed in the NXT community as I am after reading this thread.

It is long known that the core developers are hostile towards clones.  The legal threat made earlier brings it to a whole new level.

I am not a lawyer, and the following should be construed as my opinion on these matters, and should not be taken as legal advice.  Please contact your legal professional for specific advice.

So far, only one person in this thread has shown an understanding of copyright and contract law: the OP.  Mind you, these are topics which are covered in any 'Basic Law' course.  Of particular importance is answering the question of 'when' copyright is applied to a work.

In almost all jurisdictions, copyright is automatically granted to the author at the time of creation (or "fixed in a tangible form of expression", if you like).  Committing code to a private repository should suffice here (perhaps even earlier, but is unimportant to this discussion).  By default, this copyright grants little privileges to anyone except the author.  But, when committed to a repository in which a license is attached, that license is immediately applied to the work.  It matters not if the repository is private, nor does it matter when or if it is made public. Also, the subsequent packaging and signing of binary releases has no effect on the copyright of the original source code.  Mike has chosen a suitable commit from which to fork as MIT

In short, the developers made an error when transitioning to GPL (by continuing to copyright intermediate work under the MIT license), and has little legal ground to threaten the OP in this way.  Put the pitchforks away, fellas.

Mike, I wish you the best in your endeavors.  I apologize for the toxicity here.

(As a side mention, it would benefit the NXT community to read Mike's posts again and heed the warnings about dual-licensing and the insufficient contract which aims to misuse the work of previous contributors).
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Damelon on August 26, 2015, 08:31:48 pm
It is long known that the core developers are hostile towards clones.  The legal threat made earlier brings it to a whole new level.

This is a blatantly wrong statement. Also known as a lie.
Anyone can clone, as long as they include the GPL licensing.
You might want to take note that the people behind the first clone (N)HZ have reacted positively in this very thread: https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/notice-to-nxt-clone-creators/

A lot of people in Nxt (myself included) have been involved in more than one clone, just because they like other projects.

You are either completely misinformed, or just deliberately lying.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: yassin54 on August 26, 2015, 08:37:27 pm
https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/notice-to-nxt-clone-creators/
+1440
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: dude on August 26, 2015, 08:39:31 pm
I'd like to highlight some facts in this discussion so far.

The change to GPL was discussed on this forum before transitioning into it, where were you then to discuss this?

The accounts complaining about this are brand new and might as well be one person. Also all of them are trying to appear as experts on this matter.

If you are honest developer and person you'd respect the decisions and statements of the core developers who work hard to make this software and there would be no need for lawsuit threats and negative talks.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: VanBreuk on August 26, 2015, 08:40:34 pm
I apologize for the toxicity here.

I'm sorry Frodo, but I don't think you are entitled to apologize on anyone's behalf, much less on behalf of the Nxt community, in the first comment you post literally two minutes after registering in the forums.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: jl777 on August 26, 2015, 08:58:44 pm
I'd like to highlight some facts in this discussion so far.

The change to GPL was discussed on this forum before transitioning into it, where were you then to discuss this?

The accounts complaining about this are brand new and might as well be one person. Also all of them are trying to appear as experts on this matter.

If you are honest developer and person you'd respect the decisions and statements of the core developers who work hard to make this software and there would be no need for lawsuit threats and negative talks.
exactly!
and all he/they have to do is GPL their derivative work to comply, at least that is my limited understanding.

Such burden
Much complaining
ulterior motive
trollpuppets
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: Damelon on August 26, 2015, 09:09:47 pm
I'd like to highlight some facts in this discussion so far.

The change to GPL was discussed on this forum before transitioning into it, where were you then to discuss this?

The accounts complaining about this are brand new and might as well be one person. Also all of them are trying to appear as experts on this matter.

If you are honest developer and person you'd respect the decisions and statements of the core developers who work hard to make this software and there would be no need for lawsuit threats and negative talks.
exactly!
and all he/they have to do is GPL their derivative work to comply, at least that is my limited understanding.

Such burden
Much complaining
ulterior motive
trollpuppets

GPL means open sourcing it all.
As far as I can determine, that's the reason not to want to use it.

The MIT vs GPL license discussion is old, but interesting:

http://askubuntu.com/questions/46380/how-do-i-use-gpl-and-mit-licenses-correctly

Quote
We should be clear here.

  • GPL allows commercial redistribution but the source code of the whole thing must be available (with changes) to anyone who purchases a copy of it .
  • LGPL is good for software libraries. These can be included in proprietary projects without needing to redistribute the whole source. The only time source distribution needs to happen is if they edit your code and even then, they only have to release their changes to it.
  • MIT code can be relicensed freely. Somebody could take your code, verbatim, and re-release it under GPL, proprietary licenses, etc.

"GPL vs MIT" is an eternal battle. Go with whatever you're actually happiest with, not what is most convenient. If you're not happy for potentially evil people to take your code and use it for potentially evil or lucrative purposes, use something where you have some recourse like GPL. If you really don't care and you're not using any GPL'd code yourself, a more liberal license like MIT would be fine.

Remember virally-open-source licenses aren't just good for you, they ensure that your work, however it's adapted and re-released is free for everybody under the same terms. Even if you're dumping the code with no interest in maintaining it, GPL gives it a better hope of remaining free.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: EvilDave on August 26, 2015, 09:23:09 pm
Here's the Wikipedia GPL info, for those too lazy to search themselves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

One paragraph is very relevant to the current discussion:
Quote
David A. Wheeler argues that the copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of Linux-based systems, giving the programmers who contributed to the kernel the assurance that their work would benefit the whole world and remain free, rather than being exploited by software companies that would not have to give anything back to the community.

This is the crucial point here: people are free to do whatever the heck they like with Nxt under the GPL license, as long as the GPL license is applied to all subsidiary projects.......it's not a problem.

However, if someone wants to take the Nxt code and use it under another license or as (partially) closed source, then they have to ask permission from the copyleft holders and creators of the Nxt code: our devs. 
So far, mikecorleone has not made one step to get in direct contact with either the devs or the Nxt Foundation to discuss this, or to even enquire about what licensing arrangements may be involved. This makes his claim to represent genuine commercial entities doubtful, as a licensing deal for software isn't exactly a new concept in the business world.

We've had a couple of concept discussions about similar licensing deals with real businesses, and no-one from the real business/commercial world has even raised an eyebrow at the idea of Nxt licensing, it's a completely normal way to use existing systems in new businesses.

Could mc explain exactly why his clients need to have Nxt under the MIT license ?

Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: yassin54 on August 26, 2015, 09:33:08 pm
GPL is the best solution, now I understand better hahaha  :D
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: capodieci on August 27, 2015, 02:36:41 am
I always arrive late to the party :(

Ah, and this topic has been of great interest for me with debune.org and with otdocs.com

I do obviously follow common sense, and I do stand with the Nxt community for obvious reasons :)

I support GPL license for how it has been presented in this tread, I support the right of the authors of the software to be respected as such, I support open source under many aspects (security should not come from obfuscation, the more eyes go through the code the merrier, people should have the right to know what they run on their machines, people should be able to compile code on their own, people should always be able to change code at their will).

As I did participate to some of the discussions related to licensing, there are a couple of aspects that were discussed that left me confused tho, and that lead to some interesting (more philosophical than technical) position people had taken.

I do consider the license a mean to get to a goal. Rephrasing I first set what I want, then I choose the right license for it (rather than adapting what I want to the license I have chosen).

I believe that for the best of the Nxt future we need as much adoption as possible in as many projects as possible ALWAYS recognising and linking Nxt website in a visible place of whatever UI the software uses it (even if only using the Nxt APIs). For example, even in a test work we are doing (that is not released publicly) we always keep a link to Nxt: http://mvp.live.otdocs.com/ (check the bottom right corner) - don't abuse the website is a mere work in progress.

During the past discussions we came out with two branding: "Nxt Inside" and "Powered by Nxt"

"Nxt inside" meant for projects based on the Nxt blockchain (obviously much more loved by holders of NXT as higher usage of the Nxt proprietary network means higher valuation of the NXT currency)

"Powerd by Nxt" is meant for projects that for a precise reason cannot use the main Nxt blockchain, and need to bootstrap a separate independent blockchain with a new genesis block.

In any case each project should give clear and evident recognition to Nxt.org so to drive users to the core Nxt project. Doing this using a special logo or text and link in the UI created, and obviously respecting the license and publishing and delivering the source code to the public and the users)

It has been quite an interesting sharing of opinions and ideas about the two different uses (I don't want to start this here again), really focused on the possibility to open a separate blockchain using a modified version of NRS as this would not directly favour people holding NXT (yet I do believe it will indirectly help adoption).

For what I do read in this tread it seems to me that the GPL license (unless it is modified to suit specific needs) does leave it open to anyone to pretty much make the best out of what has been done now, just making sure that the work done is openly accessible to everyone! Furthermore if someone whats to close source something built on top of the work done by the core developers... well, it must have good reasons and thus be ready to pay good cash for it!

I don't really see what the arrogance shown by that corleone/frodo dude is all about.

R
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: pepito_fdez on December 04, 2017, 12:19:12 am
I am reading this in 2017....

I DID read the whole thread. It's been a fun hour here. My impression, when I started reading Jean-Luc "reasons" for him to go GPL, is that he did it with a hidden purpose to make money off his product... which is OK, but please, save that bs about your "philanthropic" need to protect your work. You just want to make money dude. STFU.

THEN I find that NXT is not longer under GPL but JPL (Jelurida Public License)... here an excerpt...

Quote
The main idea of the Jelurida Public License is not only to ensure that the source code of any work based on a work released under this license remains open, and remains released under the same license, but also to make sure that the community of the original blockchain token holders also receives back some of the new token value created by any such derivative projects, if those have opted to create their own blockchain instead of using the blockchain instance for which the original software is being developed. This is achieved by the JPL sharedrop requirement of Article 3.4.1 of the General Conditions.

This is LAUGHABLE to say the least. This is their true intentions all along. Make money. That's why it went from MIT to GPL and now JPL. Nerds businessmen wannabe... pitiful.

All it takes is create an anonymous company somewhere in South America, say Bolivia ($50), then a shell company in Panama ($1,200) holding the one in Bolivia... then copy your code, Find and Replace all reference to NXT for FCKU and run the damn code... by the time your lawsuit comes to the courts (and you have spent LARGE amounts of money and years)... it's too late.

So stop sweating it man. If anyone wants to profit from your work, all it takes is a little of ingenuity.
Title: Re: Friendly nxt fork
Post by: capodieci on December 07, 2017, 10:54:17 am
I am reading this in 2017....

I DID read the whole thread. It's been a fun hour here. My impression, when I started reading Jean-Luc "reasons" for him to go GPL, is that he did it with a hidden purpose to make money off his product... which is OK, but please, save that bs about your "philanthropic" need to protect your work. You just want to make money dude. STFU.

THEN I find that NXT is not longer under GPL but JPL (Jelurida Public License)... here an excerpt...

Quote
The main idea of the Jelurida Public License is not only to ensure that the source code of any work based on a work released under this license remains open, and remains released under the same license, but also to make sure that the community of the original blockchain token holders also receives back some of the new token value created by any such derivative projects, if those have opted to create their own blockchain instead of using the blockchain instance for which the original software is being developed. This is achieved by the JPL sharedrop requirement of Article 3.4.1 of the General Conditions.

This is LAUGHABLE to say the least. This is their true intentions all along. Make money. That's why it went from MIT to GPL and now JPL. Nerds businessmen wannabe... pitiful.

All it takes is create an anonymous company somewhere in South America, say Bolivia ($50), then a shell company in Panama ($1,200) holding the one in Bolivia... then copy your code, Find and Replace all reference to NXT for FCKU and run the damn code... by the time your lawsuit comes to the courts (and you have spent LARGE amounts of money and years)... it's too late.

So stop sweating it man. If anyone wants to profit from your work, all it takes is a little of ingenuity.

An aggressive approach would only generate a defensive tactic on the devs side. I have been trying hard to explain JL & co why many other projects (including 1:1 clones of Nxt such as Waves) go mainstream, while sadly Nxt is unknown to most of the crypto community. The human aspect is 99% of the game, and the approach taken by Jelurida has been not the right one IMO. I lost face in a couple of occasions where I did introduce Nxt as the key solution and Jelurida as the people to talk to, making the mistake of assuming the aim was to bring Nxt where Ethereum is now, as an example. I still have hopes for Nxt and I still believe a friendly approach can be taken to bring the spotlight in this direction and make all the (small) community around Nxt enjoy the success. The value of Nxt, probably not as planned, is on the technology, and not on the cryptocurrency. We -- they -- can still save the day, and make Nxt something big. Ardor aside, as strategically that is something else altogether IMO.

R
elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly