This made me think about the GPL x Apache debate.

Both are open source licenses, but Apache license allows it to be embedded on proprietary code, while GPL forbids that.

This leads to highly funded developers - mostly, core devs of big softwares like Wordpress and Linux), or developers that somehow don't need to worry about money, to prefere GPL. Because they don't want the product of their work being used for free and with no credits by companies that will profit from it.

By making their software GPL and blocking profit-based companies from consuming it on their softwares, they also remove the insterest of such companies to invest on their software (after all, they don't need these companies, they are alrdy nicely funded). And by doing so, they also reduce demand of work for independent developers interested on their software.

Apache licensed softwares may end up being consumed for free from companies that will profit from it, but these companies will also hire developers expert on these open source softwares, and increase demand for ppl to learn them and advocate on them.

Bringing this to Steem, you propose true decentralization of dApps that consume it. But that would also reduce these dApps owners' influence and profitability. And that would lead to removing interest from them.

First of course we have Steemit.com's Steemit Inc, which clearly wanna keep control of the whole system, and as Steem value had decreased I've seen many complains coming from the company, from investors, witnesses and general users.

Then we have softwares like Steem Monsters, which is the to-date best cryptocurrency-based game. And one that limits P2W!

Finally we have companies interested in tokenization. Ethereum grew based on this idea and is now fat due to that, and Waves is coming strong with its awesome wallet and DEX and its easyly created tokens.

Steem being way ahead of any other cryptocurrency to becoming the top dApp platform, wouldn't lose developers and companies interest if they'd see they can't be a middleman of a service? Be it by blockchain design, be it by community rejection...

I remember 20 years ago most Linux distros would gladly have freeware softwares on them, until they decided to ban such softwares and distribute only open source ones. That made some softwares be orphaned and some new be created.

I also remember when Joomla used to be proprietary software-friendly for its extension, when it was in beta. Then its core devs started forcing its extentions to be open source, that angered many companies that greatly contributed to its development and wouldn't be allowed to provide their proprietary extensions anymore.