From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A608087A for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:32:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net (outmail149075.authsmtp.net [62.13.149.75]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1D8AA for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:32:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u9ECW2Po050036; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:32:02 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u9ECVxx1021072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:32:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C930F4008D; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:27:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A524920732; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:31:57 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Daniel Robinson Message-ID: <20161014123157.GB8499@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20161014105757.GA8049@fedora-21-dvm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 3468f53a-920a-11e6-829e-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdwYUF1YAAgsB AmAbWldeU197WWM7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUQwdcnpJ Th8eUBhycAcIeXh0 ZUEsXXRdVBJ/dhdg S0xURHAHZDJmdWgd WRVFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk FAgyOXU9MCtqYAht ZkkMNhoURlpDGTg4 VlgEGilnEEsCWioz a1QsN0JUFlwQNEop eUYnV1UFNRMfBm8W FEZLDi5VKl8KSmI3 CktwXFIVFzxbCTpH DwczSgBw X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:32:05 -0000 --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 04:51:01AM -0700, Daniel Robinson wrote: > > > > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo. >=20 >=20 > Agreed. Also worth noting that it has a potential advantage over unilater= al > patent disarmament, analogous to the advantage of copyleft licenses over > MIT/BSD: it provides an incentive (at least a theoretical one) for other > companies to adopt it too. Agreed. That's also one of the reasons (lesser) reasons why I didn't adopt a patent pledge like blockstream has done. Though frankly the main reason is = I'm unlikely to be able to afford to get any patents anytime soon anyway, so it= 's all symbolic and I'd rather spend as little as possible on lawyers. :) Also= , my standard contract that I use with clients prohibits me from getting patents= on work I do (and imposes financial penalties on clients who in turn try to ap= ply for patents on work derived from mine). > As many people have proposed, the best option, though one that would > require a lot of work, might be a dedicated Bitcoin-related defensive > patent pool=E2=80=94similar to Linux's Open Invention Network=E2=80=94tha= t could > strategically deploy patent licenses to incentivize cooperation and punish > aggressors. Agreed. > Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin > > Core license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure = the > > copyright license also has anti-patent protections. >=20 >=20 > I think Apache 2.0 would be a great license for Bitcoin Core. It not only > contains an explicit patent license grant (rather than MIT's implicit one= ), > but terminates that license if the licensee asserts a claim alleging that > the covered work infringes a patent. That might be an effective deterrent > against bringing patent claims based on alleged infringement in Bitcoin > Core. Indeed. For a codebase that is in large part both a reference implementation and the very definition of the Bitcoin protocol, we do want a permissive license to ensure that commercial users are able to use the Bitcoin protoco= l. However there is no reason to extend that permissivity to allowing others to attempt to restrict others' rights to use the Bitcoin protocol via patents. > (I'm not sure I see a good reason to dual-license under the LGPL3, > but am curious to hear more.) Ah, actually I think I misremembered: it'd be Apache2.0/LGPL_v2_ where a du= al license would make sense; Apache2.0 is compatibile with (L)GPL3: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility (L)GPLv2 doesn't have the patent protections that (L)GPLv3 does, so my suggestion is wrong; Apache2.0 by itself is perfectly good. > It would probably be feasible to upgrade to the Apache license for new > releases and contributions (leaving already-existing code and previous > releases under the MIT license=E2=80=94so basically a copyright "soft-for= k"). Has > this been discussed before? Are there any obstacles or objections? Yup, that'd be perfectly possible to do. Basically new contributions would = be licensed under the new, MIT-compatible, licenses. I did that myself with python-bitcoinlib, as part of the codebase was licensed MIT, and part LGPLv= 2 or later; to comply with the latter I changed the license for all new work to LGPLv3 or later. Interestingly, this has lead to the Bitcoin Core unit tests using an older version of python-bitcoinlib; kudo's goes to Suhas Daftuar f= or dilligently respecting the new license. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYANA6AAoJEGOZARBE6K+yLo4H/2YtorAcnmfFi2hCX6u5vOt9 5DSXICCs8PkCnDxEC/uOuECGMlqI8C3ONw9nrcKgBbpaj2Q6/h3beixJWGTqkf2a B1mfXO0kzDG64uRlnsBqZyGGK28BBJNiV+akoBl3ukWibHOL4OmfDRmiim6yeH/E zjWZmMn8k5lAdQ0p4KnYNnbhwprTuHvvYXo2Pj5GUuXzB2Vr3npcs7yi9Rk7Uoxn zgbPIhfq4w/hzJhdeP6LOKUlKI8GEDc6ZoKtbqTq7DDgyK1GiKigICqKePFeHZkg RpqYEQ7UUc9w9x4+dcgnrOKc1wyeI/j5zM5jCZ6NuaPCS7mTRsuRUGlbHgmRanw= =TIgi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk--