I was thinking 60 days, but 90 is probably better. It doesn’t mean we have to wait that long, but it gives us the flexibility if we need it. This is a good idea.
We have been able to push out hot fixes in 24 hours when required. Cutting and compiling an “open” version of the software is straight forward.
I do not expect that the open source version is different from the last closed release; just a version number update.
Let’s not allow this to drag on for up to three months after the shareholders have cast their votes in favor of it.
Would very much like to see publication of the source code under GPL3 at the time that author(s) feel the risk of clone-coins is remote enough.
Why do you like GPLv3 rather than MIT, or another type of license?
Licensing is not my expertise. As a programmer I know:
The Free Software Foundation ( https://www.fsf.org/ )and the GPLv3 exist to preserve rights for the author(s) of software. In case GPL3 is becoming restrictive for a project’s goals, the author(s) are free to re-license their work under a more permissive license or add exceptions as amendments to the license.
Projects like: http://www.wtfpl.net/ make light of the issue.
However, I’m sure the Author(s) take their own work seriously as they must know they are leading the field of crypto-currencies. I hope they will consider the option to continue the tradition of Free Software leading the way and choose a license that will protect their work and vision.
Great idea! I’ve added an additional line onto the page.
Here it comes, a new source of pressure. Coinpayments.net, altcoin payment processor, requires open source for integration with their system.
Unlike others kinds of applications, they need to add a customized RPC to the client for integrating in their payment system.
I’m MrData from the dev team. The main reason we need the source is because we add custom RPC functions to our coins.
The coin source wouldn’t need to be publicly available.
the only way to do that is by modifying the source and compiling it.
Is this the only thing hindering them?
yes, that, and 500 $ we need to pay upfront for the effort
Hm. As I mentioned before, they would enable a lot of merchants to adopt NuBits… but I don’t think their service is really necessary with our stable currency.
Floating this topic back up to the top of the message board. I think it would be beneficial for us to finalize the motion and begin voting so that the broader crypto community can see our future commitment to open-source.
Would be good to get the motion up. Would be a good start for 2015. Maybe we can put up a motion with an arbitrary date, say around 15 April (about 200 days after start). If the date passes without the motion being passed the motion expires.
I think a better approach would be a perpetual vote that does not have a defined time limit. This will show the broader community that we are slowly inching towards 50% approval for open-sourcing. I plan on keeping track of the active vote count on https://nubits.com/about/source-code until we reach open-source consensus.
What about the checklist?
I don’t see them as mutually exclusive. The motion can be opened for voting at the same time that the checklist is formalized. People can vote for it if the would like to, even before everything on the checklist is completed. In reality, if shareholders agree with the order of items on the checklist, they won’t start to vote for the motion until some percentage of the items have been met.
Bump again. With our high visibility today I think it’s important we have a finalized motion soon to begin voting on.
I’ll put some time into this later today. I’m still in the open source now not later camp.
I’ll get the final motion posted this afternoon.