Thanks for the clarification.
"Boilerplate" or not, could you expand on why you added the clauses into the license that provide your company with the right to monetize content provided by users?
To me, and I suspect many others, it's the antithesis of what I understood you were trying to do with impervious, and as the licensing verbiage stands, appears to align with the type of behaviour we've seen and experienced from large listed tech companies that monetize their users.. which is what we're all totally OVER.
If it's just a case of throwing in boilerplate (time and cost) with light review, then it's an easy fix to revise right?
100 fucking percent. Why the fuck would anyone in the bitcoin space support Impervious now? Fucking insane... I was really looking forward to Impervious and was having fun playing with it last night. But you own everything I type? What the shit guys?!?!!