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 43F751420 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:43:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B555B1E2 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:43:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:43:18 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55E5AB78.3080901@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:43:20 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:43:27 -0000 > We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the > existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference > client software. I suggest talking to a lawyer first. To have a license you need an entity that holds the license. What entity actually holds the MIT license? There is a copyright notice on the Core Client that claims the license is held by the developers. It that the main core developers, anyone who has ever submitted an accepted pull request, or something else? I don't think there is any kind of valid license on the software to begin with. Just posting a notice does not make it true just like all those "terms of use" web notices are generally not valid contracts (see "click wrap vs. "browser wrap" discussions). What entity would actually hold a "blockchain license" and who decides who would hold the license? If the developers decide there should be a license that means the developers own the blockchain and I don't think that is consistent with what is going on here. Russ