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 ECDFE10A5 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:28:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com (mail-vk0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6244F1C2 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:28:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbc123 with SMTP id c123so12951136vkb.3 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=i0/ZFSdIzxXq/ePNkS+xYmr2+IuJcPdSPaZcq5vUP9g=; b=Y41IF1Xu4UQAD6ASViwUZpOBz3NAPwRIKratv+ZCXgGxCJxJo9JsQFugakDvVn5QQ+ fVDYBPezlVBxSIsspFCL9jLHIDaCDl6sWBhNpx0IekN1PqCbEVdrtk8fXscymo7NEf9R WxAHFqsj2rwlfMFCnzqqsW4lEj2t3X0mZisdC/emFHeDK6BuhqSQQN0kDsIr2D19xsTt DoJ8qajYXXO6pO/Blt7d16EjmikjxdXQDuNvPUIInhu096L92QnGQlZkXcD2zRr/Q6bN R+zhZzJkFOq/0l14gMPN1YQ0MZXHjMAIGqj8ihG7S9TQgQm3PazkKvemvjrkHKNUn0oD 0jDg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.76.232 with SMTP id n8mr31160911vdw.20.1441225733506; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:28:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: "Warren Togami Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501c594e30f17051ec983bd X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 20:28:56 -0000 --bcaec501c594e30f17051ec983bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Warren, very good feedback. To avoid taking up too much of everyone's time at this point, I think Wladimir's suggestion of placing this in a BIP advisory box for a while is a good one. We did indicate that this might take a while to gestate. It is probably for us to do some further investigations and possibly engage some input from a few miners. We don't want to play at being lawyer, but our review does point towards this being something worth coming back to. In terms of citation, we did reference a case called *Feist*. We also found some general database protection details which are relevant to the USA, if you need any bed time reading: http://copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html For now, thanks to everyone for feedback and comments. Regards, Ahmed On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I am skeptical that any license for the blockchain itself is needed > because of the possibility that the blockchain is not entitled to copyrig= ht > protection. While I am not a lawyer, I have stared hard at the copyright > doctrine of the U.S. in multiple law school Intellectual Property courses > and during my previous career in Open Source Software where copyright > matters a great deal. > > As each owner of a >> coin makes a transfer by digitally signing a hash of the previous >> transaction along with the >> new owner=E2=80=99s public key, the block chain is a perpetual compilati= on of >> unique data. >> *It is therefore compiled in a creative and non-obvious way.* In the >> USA, for example, these >> attributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled >> upon by the courts. > > > This portion of your paper I believe is not true and requires citations i= f > you want to be convincing. Is it truly "creative and non-obvious"? My > understanding under at least U.S. law, the blockchain may not be entitled > to copyright protection because a compilation created in a mechanical > manner is not a creative work of a human. > > I suppose a transaction could contain a "creative" element if it contains > arbitrary bytes of a message or clever script. For the most part though > most of what you call "digitally signing a hash of the previous transacti= on > along with the new owner=E2=80=99s public key" is purely the result of a = mechanical > process and really is not creative. Furthermore, even if that output wer= e > "non-obvious", obviousness has nothing to do with copyrightability. > > Your license is correct in intent in attempting to exclude from the > royalty free grant works within the blockchain that themselves may be > subject to copyright of third parties. The elements within the blockchai= n > may be entitled individually to copyright if they are in any way a creati= ve > work of a human, but as a compilation I am doubtful the blockchain itself > is entitled to copyright. > > I understand copyright with respect to databases can be different under > other jurisdictions. Your paper mentions the European database law that = is > indeed different from the U.S. Your paper is incomplete in scholarly and > legal citations. I myself and we as a community don't know enough. I > suppose this topic merits further study. > > Warren Togami > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the >> existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference cli= ent >> software. >> >> Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of >> this draft BIP. >> >> Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are >> here: >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3D= sharing >> >> Regards, >> >> Ahmed >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --bcaec501c594e30f17051ec983bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Warren, very good feedback.

To a= void taking up too much of everyone's time at this point, I think=C2=A0= Wladimir's suggestion of placing this in a BIP advisory box for a while= is a good one. We did indicate that this might take a while to gestate.

It is probably for us to do some further investigati= ons and possibly engage some input from a few miners.=C2=A0 We don't wa= nt to play at being lawyer, but our review does point towards this being so= mething worth coming back to.

In terms of citation= , we did reference a case called Feist. We also found some general d= atabase protection details which are relevant to the USA, if you need any b= ed time reading:

<= div>
For now, thanks to everyone for feedback and comments.

Regards,

Ahmed
=

On Wed, Sep 2, 20= 15 at 9:56 AM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev <bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I am skeptical that any license for th= e blockchain itself is needed because of the possibility that the blockchai= n is not entitled to copyright protection.=C2=A0 While I am not a lawyer, I= have stared hard at the copyright doctrine of the U.S. in multiple law sch= ool Intellectual Property courses and during my previous career in Open Sou= rce Software where copyright matters a great deal.

As each owner of a
coin makes a transfer by digitally = signing a hash of the previous transaction along with the=C2=A0
new owne= r=E2=80=99s public key, the block chain is a perpetual compilation of uniqu= e data. It is=C2=A0
therefore compiled in = a creative and non-obvious way. In the USA, for example, the= se=C2=A0
attributes confer legal protections for databa= ses which have been ruled upon by the courts.

This portion of your paper I believe is not true and requir= es citations if you want to be convincing.=C2=A0 Is it truly "creative= and non-obvious"?=C2=A0 My understanding under at least U.S. law, the= blockchain may not be entitled to copyright protection because a compilati= on created in a mechanical manner is not a creative work of a human.
<= div>
I suppose a transaction could contain a "creative&q= uot; element if it contains arbitrary bytes of a message or clever script.= =C2=A0 For the most part though most of what you call "digitally signi= ng a hash of the previous transaction along with the new owner=E2=80=99s pu= blic key" is purely the result of a mechanical process and really is n= ot creative.=C2=A0 Furthermore, even if that output were "non-obvious&= quot;, obviousness has nothing to do with copyrightability.

<= /div>
Your license is correct in intent in attempting to exclude from t= he royalty free grant works within the blockchain that themselves may be su= bject to copyright of third parties.=C2=A0 The elements within the blockcha= in may be entitled individually to copyright if they are in any way a creat= ive work of a human, but as a compilation I am doubtful the blockchain itse= lf is entitled to copyright.

I under= stand copyright with respect to databases can be different under other juri= sdictions.=C2=A0 Your paper mentions the European database law that is inde= ed different from the U.S.=C2=A0 Your paper is incomplete in scholarly and = legal citations.=C2=A0 I myself and we as a community don't know enough= .=C2=A0 I suppose this topic merits further study.
Warren Togami

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Ahm= ed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun= dation.org> wrote:
Hello,

We believe the netw= ork requires a block chain licence to supplement the existing MIT Licence w= hich we believe only covers the core reference client software.
<= br>
Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the = scope of this draft BIP.

Rationale and details of = our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are here:

<= div>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwE= bhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing

Regards,

Ahmed

__________________________________________= _____
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



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


--bcaec501c594e30f17051ec983bd--