> [OA,] *you were asked here > > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080618.html > > to provide basic documentation, and you failed to provide any.
O.A, there is something you need to be aware of that perhaps you are missing: A bit over 30 years ago, Richard Stallman personally and at apparently not insignificant personal sacrifice, ushered in the present era of a new social contract which despite many years of 'despondent underdog status', now finally predominates, and even Microsoft admits they "were on the wrong side of history", notwithstanding MS still seems allergic to the word "freedom": Microsoft on 'wrong side of history' with open source, president Brad Smith says https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-wrong-side-history-open-source-president-brad-smith-says Steve Ballmer called Linux a "cancer," but Microsoft's current president says Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when it comes to open source. Sean Endicott 19 May 2020 Microsoft president Brad Smith recently shared his thoughts on open source and how Microsoft approached it at the turn of the century. Speaking at an MIT event, Smith stated that "Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when open source exploded at the beginning of the century, and I can say that about me personally." Smith has been with Microsoft for 25 years and The Verge points out that he has been part of several legal battles surrounding open source software as one of Microsoft's senior lawyers. Now, Smith has a different view. The Microsoft president added that "The good news is that, if life is long enough, you can learn … that you need to change." ... This social contract brought forth by Stallman was likely not the first actually free/libre software, but was certainly the explicit naming of, and call to live, this ('new') social contract in relation to computer software. And today there are few who do not understand at least the personal/individual benefits (as well as corporate/business benefits) to engaging with and embracing libre software, notwithstanding that many do live in mere utility and 'personal benefits' rather than the actual higher ethic of freedom for one and all as a matter of principle. Suffice to say, in 2020 it will simply never fly if you try to go against this new social contract. Proprietary, closed hidden and anti competitive simply is not tolerated by those you want to be in association with. >From code to protocols, and even your foundation principles, to be "taken >seriously" there is one option - open and libre protocols, open and libre >source code, and the reference implementation must be available for download >and inspection, and libre licensed. There is no other option. You have been treated with kid gloves up until a couple days ago, and you've been provided abundant notice of the things you must provide, and not even a draft protocol document have you provided. There is a phrase in English, "put up or shut up". (You may want a different reception in the face of your possible desire "to be trusted" and your desire to have folks sign NDAs and accept proprietary source code, but that is fanciful wishing in the face of the 30+ years FLOSS social contract we live with today - you ain't gonna turn back this clock, sonny!) Good luck,
