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 DF3E4D6D for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:47:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE7218A for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id r78so16873624wme.0 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:47:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R42Ml7zXd/YHyknw69zKm1pra2Fiany4WT+67Dt9yeA=; b=H+UnuXb4C2U4W5k59GLNESKpLBhrThcQPAThgWI2G99UeRYH97W489cJ7GVcJM9T/G 6h7dZ0DyqnpcCCQ42ERb46ula2Oy5dWe+WwVymWm+02hF6r6d/ZIrkqpVQmEudX8BvkJ 53mv7Sp9Td6WG/y/aGG098wkRpxZ+Rae+7s8a0+9d/+L3JlCkygrzhSVnRCO1SZMAP7O VGT0rluiw5sosqfWX9XSPybnEnBDwGxgLTFv/+R2VJPQ43AOUrL5KQ++sgVKDqhEPPPQ 36nrdnOzrf+1vqbL60lL9KQ+sxkTN9gH7qR66gIfETgZFLYFKXd7NDuqc537D9ECOdGu zRjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=R42Ml7zXd/YHyknw69zKm1pra2Fiany4WT+67Dt9yeA=; b=camT16SognJ3rk0FFXWLDiQnkzf6Zx5x1UVuwzLUCmjlYarLDpd2MKpfXx5gBtjYKg /Ru2eWT8MhD4sGzncdU206UcUUX9XXYvJh6NMyjb2l+64eZx+WgI2XvlC7oK1+YGi2Bn bAU6ODycaJB2TSmS9bafwg/6i5zOEiyRdoXjBaorJAkF8KCNiy30zjM0AKbue/0GJ1pU aTJ/OPCJtDNk4MtCypJGkxQf+CpoPYsIXbZADUnBk8MV2DBy+Lda3czkh/z8XjqVYHYP yZQXeG/w7MT9saBSFAHnk4NcO+em8vQWcsByK39VckqI/175bnRVhemTKVpHpWpCN132 B89w== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAXV9A67YiaT1pfDBJWJXDHf9GlMf1CzEoCgzKd/n1vCr/jV9qa 5reMC1Q6TIEcF5VoSJ+wuoUIN8MfO02hQFO5TSc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224YD0j3ik+7n9QweU8GQcIs0Qt8XLCGQDDaYW6vJr87vYf7ITOQ59TEjER1GxWy1OTHMxUXItPGxda1hjfccCA= X-Received: by 10.80.195.18 with SMTP id a18mr2753486edb.178.1518536870429; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:47:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.134.189 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:47:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com> From: Bedri Ozgur Guler Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:47:09 +0300 Message-ID: To: Jameson Lopp , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cd364bda21a056519eaaf" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:22:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license 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: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:47:53 -0000 --94eb2c1cd364bda21a056519eaaf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, The use of name Bitcoin cannot be avoided due to it's nature of being a Protocol. Prohibition of usage of it as a "brand name" is just like prohibiting the word "Linux", which is the name of the kernel, being used as a brand name or part of a brand name. If that had happened, systems based on Linux kernel couldn't have used Linux word in their brands. The licence in the Linux example is GPL but it does not really differ so much. Making a protocol name a Trademark(TM) name and prohibiting it's use may solve some confusions and bad reputation causing actions but it also prohibits the protocol to be used widely so damages the credibility of the protocol itself which was born to be an independent, freedom-based, government-free, boundaries-free etc. approach to the current corrupted monetary system. If precautions should be taken to control the usage of Bitcoin word in various positions and cases, it should be done in such a way that it should not contradict with the philosophy of the Bitcoin itself. Social /marketing-based approaches proposed by Jameson Lopp will be more logical and freedom based. Trademarking and in some sense Cartel-ing the Bitcoin Protocol who arose against trademarks and cartels on "money" will destroy it's own roots and birth-right of existence in my opinion. Bedri =C3=96zg=C3=BCr G=C3=BCler On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly: > > "Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins." > > The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word > Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to = me > that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an > entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant > projects into submission. > > In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / > marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack > should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin shoul= d > be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of > any form. > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> >> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CA=C3=91UELO via bitcoin-dev= " < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: >> >> *** >> NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES >> THE NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLES= S >> THE SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCO= IN >> (CORE) BLOCKCHAIN >> *** >> >> >> That's better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be the trademark >> holder - Satoshi?) >> >> This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally >> verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name. >> >> It also adds legal uncertainty. >> >> Another major problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older >> versions of Bitcoin, not people using existing independent blockchain >> implementations and renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever. >> >> And what happens when an old version is technically incompatible with a >> future version by the Core team due to not understanding various new >> softforks? Which version wins the right to the name? >> >> Also, being unable to even mention Bitcoin is overkill. >> >> The software license also don't affect the blockchain data. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --94eb2c1cd364bda21a056519eaaf Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
The use of name Bitcoin cannot be avoided due t= o it's nature of being a Protocol. Prohibition of usage of it as a &quo= t;brand name" is just like prohibiting the word "Linux", whi= ch is the name of the kernel, being used as a brand name or part of a brand= name. If that had happened, systems based on Linux kernel couldn't hav= e used Linux word in their brands. The licence in the Linux example is GPL = but it does not really differ so much.
Making a protocol name a T= rademark(TM) name and prohibiting it's use may solve some confusions an= d bad reputation causing actions but it also prohibits the protocol to be u= sed widely so damages the credibility of the protocol itself which was born= to be an independent, freedom-based, government-free, boundaries-free etc.= approach to the current corrupted monetary system.

If precautions should be taken to control the usage of Bitcoin word in va= rious positions and cases, it should be done in such a way that it should n= ot contradict with the philosophy of the Bitcoin itself. Social /marketing-= based approaches proposed by=C2=A0Jameson Lopp will be mor= e logical and freedom based. Trademarking and in some sense Cartel-ing the = Bitcoin Protocol who arose against trademarks and cartels on "money&qu= ot; will destroy it's own roots and birth-right of=C2=A0existence in my= opinion.

Bedri =C3=96zg=C3=BCr G=C3=BCler

On Tue, Feb 1= 3, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev <bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
If I'm understanding the problem being = stated correctly:

"Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork c= oins."

The proposed solution is to disincentivize f= ork coins from using the word Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'= m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the words of the license are basica= lly useless unless there is an entity that intends to make use of court sys= tems to threaten noncompliant projects into submission.

In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / marke= ting-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack should= also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should be= reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any= form.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > wrote:

=
Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEME= NIAS CA=C3=91UELO via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
***
NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES THE= NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLESS THE = SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCOIN (COR= E) BLOCKCHAIN
***

That's better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be= the trademark holder - Satoshi?)=C2=A0=C2=A0

This would also prohibit any reimplementation that= 9;s not formally verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name.= =C2=A0

It also adds lega= l uncertainty.=C2=A0

Ano= ther major problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older version= s of Bitcoin, not people using existing independent blockchain implementati= ons and renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever.=C2=A0

=
And what happens when an old version is technically= incompatible with a future version by the Core team due to not understandi= ng various new softforks? Which version wins the right to the name?=C2=A0

Also, being unable to eve= n mention Bitcoin is overkill.=C2=A0

The software license also don't affect the blockchain data= .=C2=A0


_____________________________________= __________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--94eb2c1cd364bda21a056519eaaf--