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 CCFEAEE5 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:24:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (mail-oi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D513D0 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b3so14118841oib.11 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:24:57 -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 :cc; bh=XDzv/avxNQXvG0uETtisdhMMpuM0LDKh654xCSwFHwk=; b=rL9yfluKTjr9ifAzBHU2qPL0woM7Wnus7GGFIf+TnUACjdeyYhB+xquAgiqPwauBbx KBEmw8J8BMtJ9toT4OQn2IUDh8Z10064Hzm7VIQYT8IaYtD2QZJEKCn3pu6/Lr0iHC+v 1YvvP9uW3KUxdj+U/ASbSxUyynQdJkukLe0Z2avGrqlAtM38fx04W1NFHD/lWWVoKmzs Ao4PjU41aQj6r0mzoWXk3WdEbyCDEGVc8L7FH8jCXLRgz00wsA273N6E8t8TfCQk5BVy BbT8uCQU5sb6K8Qp42tAdO32VwP1fxgRVm2/cpIQt9BOMekf+hYBKSB/P+qC/WfNDblb UI5A== 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:cc; bh=XDzv/avxNQXvG0uETtisdhMMpuM0LDKh654xCSwFHwk=; b=IDo/3hOFX3uMe7/6B1RWahBC5Pm9b/hs1/IX9Vv+TfLZ1j9DMPrmBPFHnhMbz5Y4/S UX2NzC5gvwLPh8Y5YkQydE5VxYoVH5X0z8bS3jO6Rf/EkjmzcX0TERaMbIq1IHFkGEbw +UGc5S4iu8AE0lxnnWTQBan4O3iJRYyzw0f81QXEdCPU7TozFUGMNTx5MmabZYNtwY69 3a/WXXrnUvD6rkIa/xDEfQAz2J6r01aMUqIpzXRAMei2QMOnqlAgT2hkLH+m4JfLTWXl NFxub+rT7DGy+my+dkgQaAea/Xtwf7Zssr7AK2q66blwp3+4pPMv/z/BjVD8DTqNBf1K D1VA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCfxZPCzye3Reic+TNiCoJw38HLDNi7iFPaFrkotISOMfNi1QnE KmoISBM11fnO0qJrIW4euAdfwsVgGo8QJu8pV7Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224vd1scHb5H0mhBPRC4KnOQ8qPT9mxAuQhyIWdRERT3a9aflFWsbMSgm4AgySxKzki5EYKGArb2iimLKbQUDts= X-Received: by 10.202.206.77 with SMTP id e74mr1102764oig.13.1518535496336; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:24:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.129.89 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:24:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com> From: Jameson Lopp Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:24:55 -0500 Message-ID: To: Natanael , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d2c22d68aff05651998c8" 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 Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?JOSE_FEMENIAS_CA=C3=91UELO?= 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 15:24:57 -0000 --001a113d2c22d68aff05651998c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 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 UNLESS > THE SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCOI= N > (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 verifie= d > 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 > > --001a113d2c22d68aff05651998c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctl= y:

"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 unl= ess there is an entity that intends to make use of court systems to threate= n noncompliant projects into submission.

In my opi= nion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / marketing-based, thu= s 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 c= ourts 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 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


--001a113d2c22d68aff05651998c8--