Yes it would be null.
I think source-available Bitcoin wallets are fine. I don't see why they need to FOSS vs source-available.
Discussion
Well this is just my opinion, but its about ethos. Proprietary projects by their nature build to centralize things in their walled gardens. FOSS projects build to decentralize.
Bitcoin's ethos is as important to me as any other technical aspect of the project, therefore I'm wary of Bitcoin projects that behave counter to that ethos.
But again... thats just my opinion. I'm open to having my mind changed on that 🍻
Building non-FOSS source-available tools helps the builders get paid for their work, while still providing the transparency needed for verification, as well as providing the possibility of guerilla underground reproduction of the tools if the government shuts the project down. Most source-available tools are free to use for anything except resale. Not only coinkite but also Start9 and Umbrel are non-FOSS source-available. These are badass cypherpunk tools. Without the freedom to license themselves according to their needs, some of these projects may not even exist at all.
Cheers 🍻 🤙
Badass cypherpunk tools that wouldn't exist if the state didn't protect their code lol
Wut?
GPL is not state-protected?
We all live under threat of violence. We can't just pretend it's not there. Adapt.
If I fork coldcard's code today and start selling a product using this code, who will protect coldcard from me?
The same people who will come for your Bitcoin
Yes, exactly. The antithesis of Bitcoin protects coldcard.
Just because we live under the threat of violence from the state doesn't mean we should adapt to use the state to be violent against each other. That is regression. It is weak.
