Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D13A1052 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:04:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (mail-oi0-f50.google.com [209.85.218.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5080B405 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id t135so1724583oif.8 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:04:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W6MZGZyvBx6IAaFumhRP47ZO9onPnK5O5RDHLKJY+cQ=; b=DljU7MP9QecnHn/TAZ+wAD8j/eXjjWgy3bVBVUSo/If1Mo3hKUL4jWIqlqvZGHGjw3 0iEFJgqzT6uMdUJLreNBUKk8BjJQzJUREoG00S8/7j7qV+2VdONXNrillECNumh4iYDK MJAuUxRNDF7nK39+GUbsh7QatE5geYX73HXxyzufstE/WF5lHh0gSPJ1dmX+f7ATe5n8 vUvuJre35G+aB2B1gunHIKvvhzH8MTEmtOY3LtLmwHCES3bqbxm7H0xcXKsz46rv1KhP SVauRY5oD31dRaRryJP21lM7H5lxnL2N2rO8ScV2YVsu8Qe4BKcmuIhwnWBZ0CBNydJL t4RQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W6MZGZyvBx6IAaFumhRP47ZO9onPnK5O5RDHLKJY+cQ=; b=rsjZq4TEoJUctw8wikhFDdbSpB8gDXZx0ZdIzKGnqKzHE5FqvQqdr0gwnOUilth5Me T+Mo2N8EGfqNnLxK7pG831TjYRT9IWQt42mX4laCg3aBwEytIS1wQI3tVhka4Eflr/2f fqZMsQzIh9qML8V3J+vbvJ5R+k2v4JxVCxWhZ3stJw+Entys6Fk+Woju4adVizvaF8sP ZfTbD+80InHW5f8URKEyw9+nkn2pevNr8NNlIqOzO67io8TDFPSUlHx09LXVfgnJKC35 m77DXupdN5WzIBZ4Sr5FTVTTqmi2dcQpNeDcA+CCX3z3bjc7WHFt2gfau0faJeJZPRH7 cpLA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPA2Suj+qSqFX7NKjEaD2SV4F8R9EN4IYmsQqGeM/xVdZqEi6WBz JkYx+NSZUP1NTzQQlCKsv1PzanJrN/crT4ObTKg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224cJSxdgDDow6mymJZptoMlfIbUC0qjbz59gLdrBb0giPTMcIAdZzkbqbqkis/8nv1lYLDlq4g02Tfh7BsD72A= X-Received: by 10.84.77.143 with SMTP id y15mr1323889oix.329.1518541489297; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:04:48 -0500 From: Patrick Murck In-Reply-To: References: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:04:48 -0500 Message-ID: To: Jameson Lopp , Brian Lockhart , Natanael , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1b69f40bdf4f05651afeaa" 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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:14:26 +0000 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 17:04:51 -0000 --94eb2c1b69f40bdf4f05651afeaa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a poor idea, and agree that it=E2=80=99s largely off-topic. So with= out wasting too much of anyone=E2=80=99s time here, I=E2=80=99d point out the f= ollowing. It is pretty clear that any developer who is subject to a lawsuit from someone using Bitcoin Core software could point to the license (among other things) *defensively* to limit their liability. But who would be in a position to assert an *offensive* claim that their license terms have been breached? Who would have a right in the software that they are granting via the license? Definitely not the Bitcoin Foundation=E2=80=A6 This software is meant to be free and open for anyone to use, unfortunately that means some people will sometimes do things you disagree with. -pm On February 13, 2018 at 11:24:37 AM, Brian Lockhart via bitcoin-dev ( bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote: > I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any form. Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels... But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to =E2=80=9Cfight fire = with fire=E2=80=9D (using social / marketing based efforts) who =E2=80=9Cshould= =E2=80=9D pick up the mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn=E2=80=99= t that ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? In any case, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery= going unanswered in any =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D capacity. On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev ( bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote: 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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 --94eb2c1b69f40bdf4f05651afeaa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable = This is a poor idea,= and agree that it=E2=80=99s largely off-topic. So without wasting too much= of anyone=E2=80=99s time here, I=E2=80=99d point out the following.<= div id=3D"bloop_customfont" style=3D"font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:= 13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto">
It is pretty clear that a= ny developer who is subject to a lawsuit from someone using Bitcoin Core so= ftware could point to the license (among other things) *defensively* to lim= it their liability.=C2=A0

But who would be in a position to assert an *offensive* claim that the= ir license terms have been breached? Who would have a right in the software= that they are granting via the license? Definitely not the Bitcoin Foundat= ion=E2=80=A6
=
This sof= tware is meant to be free and open for anyone to use, unfortunately that me= ans some people will sometimes do things you disagree with.

-pm
<= p class=3D"airmail_on">On February 13, 2018 at 11:24:37 AM, Brian Lockhart = via bitcoin-dev (b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote:

> I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any form.

Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels...

But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to =E2=80=9Cfight fire with fire=E2=80=9D (using social / marketing based efforts) who =E2=80=9Csh= ould=E2=80=9D pick up the mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn=E2=80=99t that ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? <ducks and runs for cover>

In any case, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery going unanswered in any =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D capacity.


On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev (bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote:

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.linuxfound= ation.org> wrote:


Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CA=C3=91UELO via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-de= v@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 (CORE) 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's not formally verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name.=C2=A0

It also adds legal uncertainty.=C2=A0

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.=C2=A0

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?=C2=A0

Also, being unable to even 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


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
= https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--94eb2c1b69f40bdf4f05651afeaa--