I'm not a lawyer, and my knowledge on patents is limited. I guess RSK WILL endorse DPL or will make the required actions to make sure the things developed by RSK remain free and open. This was not a priority until now, but coding was. For me, coding always is the priority.

I will discuss prioritizing this with the team. Remember it took several years to BlockStream to decide for DPL and not just publish everything as they were doing. I suppose the decision it was not a simple one, involving lawyers advise and all. I guess DPL needs to actually patent the things in order to open them later, and patenting has a very high cost.

Give us time to decide which open source strategy is the best and cheaper for RSK. At this point I can assert that RSK has not filed any patent not is planing to.  This proposal is not encumbered by any patents, and drivechains is actually not RSK's idea, but Paul Sztorc's.



On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 02:00:01PM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:
> Peter, are you really going to try to down vote a decent free and
> open-source proposal that benefits all the Bitcoin community including
> you and your future children because a personal attack to me without any
> logic or basis?

I've suggested a way that you can rectify this situation so we can continue to
collaborate: Have Rootstock adopt a legally binding patent pledge/license. I'd
suggest you do as Blockstream has done and at minimum adopt the Defensive
Patent License (DPL); I personally will be doing so in the next week or two for
my own consulting company (I'm discussing exactly how to do so with my lawyer
right now).

If Rootstock is not planning on getting any patents for offensive purposes,
then there is no issue with doing so - the DPL in particular is designed in a
minimally intrusive way.

Please fix this issue so we can in fact continue to collaborate to improve
Bitcoin.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org