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 0787FDCB for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com (mail-ua0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74D4735F for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f179.google.com with SMTP id i15so12056596uak.3 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:46:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0IEhhw/lCHhR6wcSForqmF3DnWdmP1P4ED942U+rQJk=; b=VauoYzEf5XUi4poiHFXgQ7P7+Vt8Vdy+PiEk0IDfsQxIAJyrWe4eymmlZzYWOthp0Q Nkzg0BuqHn0QYzZ01tl83UjzDduezW/4U4dkbPBMxw+SD/+xQgV670g5Lyu8nVYP00NM cS17w2EKiA4d59Iex6Ve3z0nFvYzgKr55xhCM1WVRGeTNenDM8q8CgzWmv4GA5oS9tj/ 4xlsrCo2WDZdarCTfXlFnoAMGt9OX0oAblF8JsZDX1tIo9CiISJaj2UL40J4675fndAj cbBBLv3CZWDStWsLxA4QwuXYXZWWbonZXNnZ19YyTq1SKTKxofdVrDkQQiKOEW7okTk6 X05A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=0IEhhw/lCHhR6wcSForqmF3DnWdmP1P4ED942U+rQJk=; b=qQUYv0FF4AwiIwkd7j/g/MPhixtlp7s36X4NqRPjcjqFBKkawr1hE9pq821VmhKyIH Trx0r8CkrxmRpLgMd/vLQe7fKpmRGY+ZocWnn3kA1CgkLbmZs/u+058WAvDDa7ohUalv qD3O8PmwiXvWR+vLioNEBocbDWUyrl8/1yX7JBWtLMjIlY5EqXX/bcg+q4lZHFV53YBb M4Dami1RHYu6TZYDvlbef7+CLJW4NUP38/ztZwpK6XNx/yRCmFnbV0fqyFkHBwbAYFcp VfzkWQ+X8K65C5RF81J2h6cDXbbXMf79QlKWYxX7/a7ZlCATLyftnk85JRG+qWDS962H 5jNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBQoAgfugNbPoFhRyed4Pyk+TtLGEXiWOtHtAtjIrEKRAxKz9T2 kuLZ1djt6k38ieB0EzybNYo0+s/lXpXFiZQmAf4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226E8o5KbgX+Zyi+d07ejFHdvzBGRrEkoaPxBcQc9u39sIjNcjdv6grl4DDJgXIgTpkQPXYTYxakNpglCPMW7mQ= X-Received: by 10.176.1.194 with SMTP id 60mr1887620ual.135.1518543989432; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:46:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Robinson Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:18 +0000 Message-ID: To: Adam Ficsor , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no 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 17:53:39 +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 17:46:31 -0000 --001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every deviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms is a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization trying to use the software. You don=E2=80=99t want users having to clear th= eir use of Bitcoin Core through their employers=E2=80=99 legal departments, whether= or not they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think such a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it. On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I agree with the opposition on changing the license, because of the > branding attacks. > > However having two coins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game > from a security point of view. It may not be a bad idea to consider > changing the license in a way that only limits cryptocurrencies with the > same Proof Of Work, since they directly affect the stability and security > of Bitcoin. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every deviatio= n in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms is a maj= or compliance headache from the perspective of any organization trying to u= se the software. You don=E2=80=99t want users having to clear their use of = Bitcoin Core through their employers=E2=80=99 legal departments, whether or= not they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think = such a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I agree with the opposition on changin= g the license, because of the branding attacks.

However having two c= oins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game from a security point o= f view. It may not be a bad idea to consider changing the license in a way = that only limits cryptocurrencies with the same Proof Of Work, since they d= irectly affect the stability and security of Bitcoin.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad--