# Challenge: Open protocols vs. Permissionless innovation

**URL:** <https://discuss.coding.social/t/challenge-open-protocols-vs-permissionless-innovation/240>\
**Category:** SX solution development\
**Tags:** challenge\
**Created:** [January 18, 2023, 5:41am UTC](https://discuss.coding.social/t/challenge-open-protocols-vs-permissionless-innovation/240 "2023-01-18T05:41:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aschrijver](https://discuss.coding.social/user_avatar/discuss.coding.social/aschrijver/32/3_2.png) [@aschrijver](https://discuss.coding.social/u/aschrijver)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2023, 5:41am UTC](https://discuss.coding.social/t/challenge-open-protocols-vs-permissionless-innovation/240/1 "2023-01-18T05:41:45Z")

</div>

I bumped into a very interesting and astute observation in [this toot](https://social.tchncs.de/@teleclimber/109706901147301214) by [Olivier Forget](https://social.tchncs.de/@teleclimber):

> In theory open protocols allow “permissionless innovation”.
> 
> But here on [#Mastodon](https://social.coop/tags/Mastodon), built on open protocol [#ActivityPub](https://social.coop/tags/ActivityPub), you do need permission to innovate – from the community.
> 
> I find this fascinating. It shows that the theory is just a theory and in reality there are other layers at play.
> 
> Similar dynamic happens with FOSS licenses. Lots of talk about copyleft versus liberal as if that’s all that needs to be talked about. But other layers exist: legal (trademarks) and community (again).

Where it comes to interoperability this observation aligns with [major challenges](https://discuss.coding.social/t/major-challenges-for-the-fediverse/67) for the Fediverse, and in particular to the one highlighting the importance of the [technology / ecosystem substrate](https://discuss.coding.social/t/challenge-fixing-the-fediverse-technology-adoption-lifecycle/38).

The “other layers at play” are focus of Social Coding focus on co-creation at ecosystem level:

- Good: You must collaboration and seek consensus from ecosystem participants to innovate.
- Bad: If there’s no healthy substrate to the ecosystem, then your innovation efforts are likely to fail.

In general I feel that the “permission from the community” and the democratic process it requires is a good thing, highly desirable for healthy and diverse ecosystems. Yet the big challenge is to get at that stage in grassroots movements.

This observation also implies that once a corporate takeover on the open standards level occurs - who observe the lack of substrate as hampering their business efforts - you should seek their permission.

Note that on an individual project level there’s a need for permission by the maintainers. In Mastodon’s case you need consent of the BDFL to get your innovation merged, or fork the project.

* * *

PS. Olivier is involved with an interesting [Small Technology](https://small-tech.org) project: [https://dropserver.org](https://dropserver.org)