No, you don’t understand. You’re blabbering on about “company led” and other protocols that are apparently more “DAO led” projects than AAVE. You haven’t understood what was proposed. You don’t understand who’s decision it is. You don’t understand the dynamics of how the AAVE protocol is administrated right now. You apparently don’t even understand what this whole thread is for.
And somehow Sushi is a good example of a perfectly decentralised project? The project where a/the main developer wanted to make a runner with treasury funds a few days after launch? Give me a break.
I suggest you read up on AAVE governance. A lot. Because you either misinterpreted 90% or you just read 10% of it.
I otherwise also suggest that it is time consuming for you and others if you want to FUD a protocol with misinformation in its own governance forum. Believe me, everyone who reads this here knows that 90% of your “bUt VcS!” and “Ct sHIll” is absolut bullshit.
/edit 11/12/2021: Sneaking this in here, because it’s funny - Still thinking that Sushi is a good example?
Blockquote
i understand from proposal that company wants to keep ownership of code but needs blessing from community. good decentralization theater. a top defi protocol still having a company behind should either lead the “de” part of defi and go full open source, or own the VC tease and follow uniswap without asking community
So let me get this straight, out of all of this, what you get is that the company wants to keep ownership of the code? Sorry but you may be lacking reading skills. NOWHERE the company has been mentioned in this whole discussion. The company is, and has been for a long time now, merely a contributor to the protocol. The company does not have any control on the Aave ecosystem. This proposal is to empower AAVE holders of the decision whether or not they, the Aave Governance, want to keep ownership of the IP of Aave V3. You mentioned Yearn and Sushi, with all due respect to these projects, you might want to check a bit more in depth and see which one between Aave, Yearn and sushi is the most decentralized one. I’m honestly getting a bit fed up by this bs as i find it particularly offensive for my and others work and the efforts of growing a true decentralized protocol and a community.
Blockquote
Neptune, we are here to build public goods, everyone should spend more time on sushi and maker forum and understand how DAO led projects are miles ahead in their way of thinking about open protocols compared to company led projects. if you dont understand, then its much time larping community, instead of being part of it.)
Please bring another example, MakerDAO is essentially unforkable unless you spend months learning the code.
Blockquote
I support not having MIT/OS if full control with token holders and proper process in place, but everything would be held by the company and/or multisig of VCs and CT influencers so i would have to vote against.
Read the V3 launch post again. No parts of the aave protocol are controlled at this point by the company. The only non decentralized piece is the Avalanche market because Avalanche lacks a messaging bridge with Ethereum, and it’s controlled by a community multisig.
whatever we say sushi and yearn might have too powerful core contributors but there is not a single company behind acting out of self interest. Individuals > company
you cant have best of both world, you can decentralize technicality but you cant decentralize contribution and power if all the devs are working for the same company
The fact that company hasnt been mentionned is exactly the issue, if protocol is not open source, who do you think retain the IP of the code ?? company. it is what it is.
company has control. we discuss a closed source protocol for the company to sue anyone who fork the code, ala uniswapv3 no ?
company also has control over the brand and all communications of the protocol
try to launch a defi brand and see if you can sell aave merch, compared to sushi or yearn
Imho the hole crypto space was built in open source, where colaboration and competition are core values, that force the product and the team to be the best out there.
Are we know starting IP wars? Are there any plans in how to enforce the license, or how much would it cost for the treasury?
Open source is the way. Protect the reputation of AAVE brand, which is in the end, where value remains.
I don’t even know what to answer to this. I will just repeat what i said, hopefully you will understand. The company does not have any interest in retaining intellectual properties regarding anything that has built until now. It’s clearly shown by the progressive decentralization in control, open source, code licensing and contribution. The company is not the target of this proposal to manage the IP of Aave V3. Aave V3 is being built for the community and IF a more restrictive license is applied, it’s for the AAVE holders to manage.
Clear enough now? or do you want me to spell in simpler terms?
I would have much more to say on your definiton of “technicalities” or “individuals > company” but i will refrain, not worth my time.
I think protocol developers & people involved in aave governance should not be obliged to expose their efforts for free. It’s still open source people can read & get inspired - it will just (try to)forbid a simple copycat for a limited amount of time.
I don’t see a reasonable license change offsetting the developers community. Just as an example, mongodb did this and while there was a gigantic outcry they are now doing better then ever.
Aave is one of the rare protocols that haven’t been exploited in the last years. A major part of that is due to protocol contributors putting incredible effort in making things as solid as humanly possible.
The devs & governance proofed to be very risk aware and chose moderate pace & steady movement over listing every chilled coin possible. Most of the new features proposed in aave v3 are coined to double down on risk awareness (isolation mode /risk caps).
That said I think from an aave token holders perspective a delayed license like on uniswap could make sense. I doubt it will be enforceable/ prevent forks from happening, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t/ can’t try.
Not an expert on licenses, why is it currently MIT licensed?
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to have AGPLv3 or similar to disallow license changes by forkers (i think the uis of recent aave-ui forks are not even open source any more).
Also not sold on the uniswap license - instead of licensing one could perhaps try to embrace sth similar to friendly forks on balancer.
Also let’s focus this discussion on aave protocol v3 IP please & not brand - not because it’s not discussion worthy, but sidetracks this topic & is not related.
AAVE holders will own the license IP for V3.
Brand and protocol communication, the company for now. I cant answer on this because i don’t have any knowledge what the plans with the branding are. Hopefully it will be decentralized as well.
You need to take it down a few notches and maybe actually read 1984. I doubt you’ll understand it, as you seem to really struggle with this thread alone, but it might be educating for you.
Changing meaning of idea to align with the goal of central body is exactly newspeak.
OS has clear defiition and is not “anyone can read code” but “anyone can fork code”
He was merely making a point. He isn’t a fascist, he isn’t part of a totalitarian government that controls everything. He won’t sneak up on you in a dark corridor and kill you and he won’t control your thoughts. Equivocating a point made in a discussion with this is absolutely insanely hyperbolic and insulting.
There is no need for this. And there is no point of doing it.
In my opinion, the middle ground of having the Aave DAO holding the licensing for a period of time and then full open sourcing makes sense at the current moment.
I don’t think doing that goes against the “ethos” of the DeFi community, it is a matter of being realistic. All type of resources has been spent by members of the Aave community building Aave v3, and I think it is pretty fair that if some other project wants to use the Aave v3 codebase for commercial purposes, the Aave DAO will need to give permission for a period of time X.
Then about problems like “un-authorized” forks, it can seem that in practise is not effective as anybody can deploy code, but for me it is a matter of having the full clarity that action is just not authorized by the Aave holders.
Then, I support being quite open on giving permissions to other projects if good synergies are found, and obviously those don’t necessary need to be of monetary nature.
I have been going through this thread and I see a lot of people want the V3 code to be open sourced rather than getting a license. IMHO, I feel this could be annoying for other developers who have no intention of making money but they just want to contribute to the community.
OS should be in such a way that it allows anyone to use and modify it without seeking specific permission or making any payment to the original creators. But that’s not the case here. I can surely say, AAVE has a team of very good devs but by requiring an license, you might be killing some room for extra innovations in the project.
Okay. To get this going a little bit, let me summarise what was discussed and proposed until now.
We basically have two options proposed until now:
Keep the V3 protocol Open Source, preferably under the MIT license (see here for license text The MIT License | Open Source Initiative) - this means that, “without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software” will be granted to anyone who wants it.
Restrict the use of the V3 protocol under the “Business Source License 1.1” (see here for license text Business Source License 1.1 | MariaDB) - this license restricts the use of the software for up to 4 years (with room for the license holder (AAVE DAO) to make exceptions within that time). After the time has passed and the “change date” has been reached, the license will transfer into a GPL3.0 license, and will thus be open source (see here for license text GNU General Public License version 3 | Open Source Initiative)
Both licenses are non custom and free to use - a custom license is not needed and the license itself will not cost anything.
But keep in mind, that under the second scenario, i.e. restrictive license, the AAVE DAO will most likely need to be incorporated, which will incur legal cost, highly likely running cost and it will most probably take weeks if not months to get this off the ground.
To get it going quicker, the license could first be granted to the company with a contract that transfers the IP to the AAVE DAO the minute it is incorporated - this will cost a bit more money (for legalese) but could cut the time significantly for V3 to be released. This also requires the willingness of the company to do, as the AAVE DAO has no control over that.
I really like to see further discussion about this. The thread in itself has just 722 view as of now. But this is a big decision. A lot may just choose to vote, rather than participate in the discussion, but it is very important to get as much feedback as possible. A tweet of this thread by the right persons, could and should give this a bit more traction.
EDIT: A little clarification to the time delay mechanism of the restricted license. The 4 years mentioned is the maximum the license allows. The proposed delay ranged from 1-2 years.
I’d like to see Aave release the V3 protocol open source. I think there’s a lot of potential problems that come with restricting the code. For example, what if part of the Aave community were to become dissatisfied with the current protocol? Because the code is restricted, Aave governance would have a negative incentive to restrict any challenge to bad governance. Hopefully, any restrictions would be of much shorter duration than 4 years, which is practically an eternity in crypto time.
Of course this would probably not be great for token holders though. Just a small developer’s opinion on this topic.
i agree that if anything, restrictions should be way shorter (1 year max, which is usually the rate of new protocol developments).
But i’m not sure i follow on why having a more restrictive license would bring negative incentives to keep proper governance for token holders, could you elaborate?