I’ve read that blogpost before. I’m looking forward to Inrupt and community to clear up concerns regarding rights, licensing, IP… community governance/participation. It was sufficiently clear pre-Inrupt given Solid vision/initiative and expectations from the tech stack (development…standardisation). I hope you don’t find me being difficult about this, but I find whatever the transition entails quite important! It is not just for my sake but for the health of the project going forward. ATM, the apparent push to migrate discussions from Gitter and GitHub (relatively neutral parties as far as the “Solid project” or community goes) to somewhere that is governed by a single company needs to be better understood or maybe even agreed up on. This is not just about the differences in software (although I have raised some concerns about that earlier). This is of course completely orthogonal to the faith that the community has on one user/builder/leader of the Solid initiative: Inrupt. So, I’m not trying to pick on Inrupt in any way. I’m interested in community’s rights and acknowledgement especially of the past work, as well going forward. There are a few things that don’t seem to align well or ring right to me, but I’ll chalk that up for now as my misinterpretation or possibly miscommunication (genuinely unintended) from the Inrupt end. For example, the User Content License and Intellectual Property seems to overstep rights/control as I read it. What would be the incentive for people to commit their ideas given CC BY-NC-SA that’s attributed to the “Solid Project” (aka Inrupt?) alongside the IP? How does that align with fostering a healthy ecosystem such that other companies engage on equal grounds without having to fear that it’ll come back to bite them later on? Which measures is Inrupt taking so that there is a clear signal along the lines of: “the Solid vision and development is community-driven” (and not yet another centralised ecosystem in the works… open but different?).
That’s just some stuff off the top of my head right now… I hope it’ll be well received This sort of stuff many startups go through - myself having been in one with a very similar concepts/drive, some overlapping tech stack, and presumably a business model similar in some aspects… a decade ago - and so I’m genuinely concerned to see these things resolve early on and transparently… especially when I’m making these observations from “the other side” this time around
and @theWebalyst wrote:
I’ve read that already. As I said I don’t doubt any of the people involved, that’s not the issue. I’ve been a part of this community for a while now, so I know the ethos, and all the people are beyond reproach as far as I can tell. I’ve met Tim one to one and spent time exchanging experiences. All good, but I hope, perhaps over optimistically, that when it comes to setting up a business there’s going to be more than ‘trust us’ because from experience, that can fail badly. Just look at how we got here. Let’s not repeat those mistakes and think that getting the technology right is enough. I firmly believe it isn’t for something so crucial to our collective fate, or more to the point, our children’s fate.