We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be
covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining
permissions for a change to be considered effective.

We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and
there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new
terms. While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to
what is an otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to
be anyone who could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this
may not be an issue. It merits further investigation.

Like I said, you need to talk to a lawyer.  What exactly would be the purpose of any license?  How can someone be a "beneficiary" to a license when you can't even explain who holds the license to begin with?  How do they "benefit?"  I don't see any purpose to putting a license on the Core software or the blockchain because nobody can explain who actually holds the license and there is no mechanism to enforce any license and there is no revenue to be shared.  The whole discussion makes no sense.

Russ

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