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 13A07FC4 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:08:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ot0-f178.google.com (mail-ot0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4619F18A for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:08:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w38so170301ota.8 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:08:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=coryfields-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5o6onZuPvPkFUJHFnKe3mQD14shJNvv9Rinu2uIR9Hc=; b=SYVX9geYJBRIVDNP9NMlXvULkABBOeGE0+Mhnou5B6SfV0qxZsTJ2Jeckvpd3GiJ7H +9lYq1IlIaXDe8VA42coehfAK33bdPbFFrBgXt2QFH2nN3kSTt07YiuNwX2lG6kvZPdq i1qh+bCc25A878kINaN4Muua9t3Tpigbk1emfzPMaPmGx8a+RmVHtqIJJxZ9pRNXOEHd JCIWoW00JsPLdxdpGrTKpfBVjXLbSDS8e11Wa9f+gRd0T2vwaypL36OT9ZUeEPwJVuJ/ jMr/eejx0557JqRbUwnpzASLk4Cj6Y/JkE7KOIvl0p/1htFbB4PVfoJUoPmRT8iIQ7iv jUrA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5o6onZuPvPkFUJHFnKe3mQD14shJNvv9Rinu2uIR9Hc=; b=AD6wJH03T2xPbAjitdfd21IBrHo1DAcfkDW2g5raV64QOl6Xw8RQ6RiGYrzj5zn/VF KvqMB45WEyIwAkC5hvEf+3ZMBTESCuqWHNlT3ZEQuytYu19NuTotGDlbY0Zw2xI4wHgS 2VhLok/k0xbuHL9vthIcPw8xfHKHTa9aghwWSMbuC94PQzFmqc1OKhcMsk1AeSaqwe33 gamXnafIHAEg6MMGCqISmmlE/rB4qQ4hpGEiv5QBFCS5i7AQHp25g6t63x5blYlJQOno lOnM3HVQ682PiUWGcqoeQnp98CceIusVlx95azGohiUoUtwW2xF1FqzDQf3BtTq7hRB6 dbQw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCCIfDO/Sv5urq+JdIAvHUARH2cadOdSz+qqgpG0zhpw+YTEQpR 9Vy27ethwRdTHW0nkPp7Vv2JmhKaEHHUQ5dkuzbw4g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224YZy1HY+R4FQhm6TRaDY+X707sW9UJPMd73LMFsLLTDiivQqf9FDpf2njEg4xOE7tHqoMNqRGV2jDeTj7FehA= X-Received: by 10.157.19.74 with SMTP id q10mr1835453otq.56.1518548883298; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:08:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: lists@coryfields.com Received: by 10.74.185.21 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:08:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3b30d56c-9f3d-578b-3982-edbeb37ee7c7@gmail.com> References: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com> <3b30d56c-9f3d-578b-3982-edbeb37ee7c7@gmail.com> From: Cory Fields Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:08:02 -0500 Message-ID: To: Felix Wolfsteller , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 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 19:08:05 -0000 I agree that this is a bad idea. When trying to work around a social issue for a highly technical project, a legal hack is certainly not the answer. As Daniel pointed out, the result of such a change would simply be that 100% of all Bitcoin companies would be told by their legal teams to use the last MIT-licensed version of Bitcoin Core as they would have no idea how to prove that they're not in violation. So I think it would succeed in exactly the _opposite_ of its intended purpose. As Patrick said: > This software is meant to be free and open for anyone to use, unfortunate= ly that means some people will sometimes do things you disagree with. Bitcoin is a Kleenex, a Q-Tip, a Xerox in the crypto world. I think we should just accept that as a feature at this point. Let other projects faff about with copyright litigation and trademark dilution concerns :) Besides, I assume many/most developers would be unwilling to accept such a change. Speaking for only myself at least, I would not contribute under that license. I must admit, though, that it would be fun to read codified No-True-Scotsman appeals in a software license :p. Cory On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Felix Wolfsteller via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'd call the license change an attack on bitcoin if its code license > prohibited me to play around with it and call it whatever I the fud I wan= t. > Other entities like companies, goverments and whoknowswhat might > prohibit that (in some countries of the world), but the nature of the > source and protocoll shall be Free (as in free speech). > > Even if my code changes are compatible with the current blockchain as > per bitcoin core I would have the lifetime "threat" that one day my code > wouldnt anymore because of changes in bitcoin core, and I wouldnt like > to get letters from lawyers earning their money by sending out letters. > > Besides I am not fully sure if I could sign the main assumption that the > forks "... [are] exacerbating the confusion about the very nature of the > project, and harming it in many ways." > Or at least I am not sure that the "harm done" __in the end__ is bigger > than the gains and the proof-of-spirit as well as all the insights > gained through what happens here, regarding Free (well, MIT) Software > out in the world. Yes, its not always pleasant but I think its worth it. > > -f > > > On 13.02.2018 16:47, Bedri Ozgur Guler via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> 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 use= d >> 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 muc= h. >> 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 t= he >> 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 sho= uld >> not contradict with the philosophy of the Bitcoin itself. Social >> /marketing-based approaches proposed by Jameson Lopp will be more logica= l >> and freedom based. Trademarking and in some sense Cartel-ing the Bitcoin >> Protocol who arose against trademarks and cartels on "money" will destro= y >> 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 wo= rd >>> Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems t= o 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 noncomplia= nt >>> 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 atta= ck >>> should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin sho= uld >>> 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-d= ev" < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: >>>> >>>> *** >>>> NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USE= S >>>> THE NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNL= ESS >>>> THE SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIT= COIN >>>> (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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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