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 0EB881254 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:21:32 +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 2087418A for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkhf67 with SMTP id f67so66612037vkh.1 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:21:30 -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=R0JKe7+i4V9ad+garNah1zADNoKoYVSUN36Y3QPz+iM=; b=iw9sDPOSBGJY9mjfTT5iCanBAeOVuWy5BSLH5uJkYC15ggVkRZAgcehBDxCtF7y1zn kzNdcDCZWCBbzndfGEjP/Ac1atQvjk3l/lzoXrIFWSPfem0a8+cXOZt10yXx/aOBdGcD Q0W8OaTbiqU3COg2yiGUXODL97LCt44Qq98+6Zy7f+yUzmtBl4Avj1FPH0uiSO5PZ5M8 nhBvSNVtyjszM2/j2xTGdtHgG/IzyqiNd4J0rtbNiRqNbaUwjJbaAK7Zq3rD9YQYX9dS l77awJRSHdX1piEgFeFi1gQ5ldX4JFoYZpBmuj0gMQ9EJIdscwBlGeiXRXQfGSTVznUV 2oWQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.243.232 with SMTP id xb8mr32187322vdc.40.1441149690356; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55E629DF.3030407@bitcoins.info> References: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> <55E629DF.3030407@bitcoins.info> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 00:21:30 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Milly Bitcoin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57 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: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:21:32 -0000 --001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This is good feedback. Thank you. Very briefly: > "To put a license on something you have to own it in the first place." ## The block chain is a database. There are laws to protect databases. We have suggested who might be best placed to be assigned rights to the block chain and more importantly why. > "A copyright is about protecting revenue" ## Not always. It can also be about saying you have a right to something and you give up those rights. There are likely to be many examples where this could be applied, for example - if you transact with someone and government agencies develop the means to reveal your transaction, a licence gives protections which might otherwise not be there in the absence of a licence. The MIT licence does something similar - the Core developers give up their rights to revenue from the software. Not wishing to go down rabbit hole, why not just remove the MIT licence? > "it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a license to control data owned by someone else." ## It is up to us to produce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP discussion process. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to legal advice, that will be helpful. > "Then the miner can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their web site" ## I would oppose any wording that attempted to do anything of the sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain is in the public domain. We have included references to royalty free use of the data. > "If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license." ## The original reference client did everything. A block chain licence was probably not envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which was intended. Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to assign rights to miners is just that, a proposal. I would just like to labour the point that users pay to use the network, but they have no defined rights, anywhere. Regards, Ahmed On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the >> draft BIP: >> > > No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense. > > Number one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it in > the first place. > > Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a > block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get > copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge a > fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their > web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes > it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain). A > copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some other purpose of > putting a license on intellectual property? > > Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a > license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners > or users to use any specific license that you come up with? > > There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any > kind of sense: > > "In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for > databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." I have no idea what > this means or what court cases you are referring to. > > "The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own > intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a notice > that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the blockchain > data? You are not that entity and neither are the developers. If there > are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license. > > "[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through > cryptograph security." I have no idea what this means. It is certainly > not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once > again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot > dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners > publishing their transaction data. > > > Russ > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is good feedback. Thank yo= u.

Very briefly:

> "To = put a license on something you have to own it in the first place." ## = The block chain is a database. There are laws to protect databases. We have= suggested who might be best placed to be assigned rights to the block chai= n and more importantly why.=C2=A0

> "A copyright is about protecting rev= enue" ## Not always. It can also be about saying you have a right to s= omething and you give up those rights. There are likely to be many examples= where this could be applied, for example - if you transact with someone an= d government agencies develop the means to reveal your transaction, a licen= ce gives protections which might otherwise not be there in the absence of a= licence. The MIT licence does something similar - the Core developers give= up their rights to revenue from the software. Not wishing to go down rabbi= t hole, why not just remove the MIT licence?=C2=A0

> "it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up wit= h the form of a license to control data owned by someone else." ## It = is up to us to produce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP dis= cussion process. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to= legal advice, that will be helpful.

> "Then the miner can charge a fee f= or any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their web s= ite" ## I would oppose any wording that attempted to do anything of th= e sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain is in the public domain. We h= ave included references to royalty free use of the data.

> "If there are = rights it is up to miners to come up with their license." ## The origi= nal reference client did everything. A block chain licence was probably not= envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which was intended= . Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to assign rights= to miners is just that, a proposal.=C2=A0

I would just like to labour the po= int that users pay to use the network, but they have no defined rights, any= where.=C2=A0

Regards,

Ahmed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the
draft BIP:

 No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.
Number one rule here:=C2=A0 To put a license on something you have to own i= t in the first place.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a b= lock they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get copyrig= ht protection but let's just pretend).=C2=A0 Then the miner can charge = a fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at thei= r web site.=C2=A0 They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who dist= ributes it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain).=C2= =A0 A copyright is about protecting revenue.=C2=A0 Is there some other purp= ose of putting a license on intellectual property?

Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a li= cense to control data owned by someone else.=C2=A0 How can you force miners= =C2=A0 or users to use any specific license that you come up with?

There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any= kind of sense:

"In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections fo= r databases which have been ruled upon by the courts."=C2=A0 I have no= idea what this means or what court cases you are referring to.

"The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and canno= t own intellectual property rights.=C2=A0 What is the purpose of you puttin= g a notice that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the= blockchain data?=C2=A0 You are not that entity and neither are the develop= ers.=C2=A0 If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their lic= ense.

"[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through crypt= ograph security."=C2=A0 I have no idea what this means.=C2=A0 It is ce= rtainly not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with.=C2= =A0 Once again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else = cannot dictate the terms of the license.=C2=A0 They could charge a fee for = miners publishing their transaction data.


Russ


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

--001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57--