1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
|
Return-Path: <danrobinson010@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15509D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f180.google.com (mail-qt0-f180.google.com
[209.85.216.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 073F2E0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f180.google.com with SMTP id s49so82431853qta.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=I0bXvYQ4SBVLm0qnUBXzVyROiRyAy5I2Y6ieMLYoBFI=;
b=DaspL3pgwkFJVK9wevadQPFh+2VmHq84UlkYWssGPfAcr3JEg20ijjkhtlUGGwqm/Y
znn2E+Oixr5FvCXsaob0GrnhCa4w6kVgXpiB7NmpTDF4X5yzqXASMJGz2Mh+GTqYGhJi
0i+UJEgudwXeIxmMkIeNAbnrRdkavCjAi6LXN5K5jmVZrMAICeRQGBdtO+qY98z1WUPF
FVI8sRbdyt4VI63aA063v25Nyd4tXdIxL4iAOpYcfPFVyZzzDMFrJD3sDddGMX1Nu1lY
jH5Cr+PPUSlPR6XO+noaHdGvWampMTm34NViJqCYZMtIpoiDl+pWD380gtywsINAzY1S
yI3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=I0bXvYQ4SBVLm0qnUBXzVyROiRyAy5I2Y6ieMLYoBFI=;
b=HAfh60J/bvMArJp7rCbtbSpS+uRTtX3u2AgBZvQWKHOQdWuDpJhZscXGYNl4e55y/9
MDuvDu+fyuOn0xdCA2bu6231VtdW5Ob9kQdyPR+NT76fHvuwMVUPRQsEz0uyAWvAQPAs
jw5qvvOQiVYwYT28olfMZ0E6LOtjGmtbAhIpOTX9LmlGDlLfMepvGAN8nd0Ip8P6iSqG
S/gMAtwPEd+cjYvzFr2eb2QphjfUUNbTJUm5WNIGlf04AZm8Elb9cZFeba52maBLu6hz
fQEeeX6NJmuhs8jURN2FVxZcw5jcznJOwkvYdIfmtbl4JT3IycgMEa/+QdmVtlvfSuG/
GpJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmPY3HmepmShNI7fEL98+t6cSXTqypxT7CmDBofq6AGVS3b8UaqSAl0U2ZEHDqANKFMTzFtu84qF8uojA==
X-Received: by 10.200.55.59 with SMTP id o56mr13284673qtb.65.1476479232204;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKzdR-oaqUicPhCjfbyX92odVs9LOzvhUOY6nyd9K2RdC_9b_g@mail.gmail.com>
<20161014105757.GA8049@fedora-21-dvm>
<CANN4kmefhJ+t9--JV+g1aZgX_wyw+hKqAeBm6=UOUBROVS7VpA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANN4kmefhJ+t9--JV+g1aZgX_wyw+hKqAeBm6=UOUBROVS7VpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Robinson <danrobinson010@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD438HtXOJ0QRhckORLfXX13CB=MGq1x5qakMiDhhNKipWDCtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nick ODell <nickodell@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113c037227998e053ed99c10
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:16:45 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough,
but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:15 -0000
--001a113c037227998e053ed99c10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First, non-practicing entities are definitely a problem, but they're far
from the only companies involved in software patent litigation. As you say
yourself, one reason companies obtain patents is to "prevent
competition"=E2=80=94meaning they produce a competing product. Look at the
billion-dollar lawsuits in the smartphone patent wars.
(Unless you're referring to "patent privateers" that assert claims and are
only indirectly sponsored and controlled by real tech companies. I don't
think the Defensive Patent License directly addresses that problem=E2=80=94=
Section
7.1 defines an "affiliate" relatively narrowly=E2=80=94although the Apache =
2.0
license arguably does, with its broad definition of "Legal Entity." I don't
profess to know anything about the reasoning behind the DPL's wording, and
I may be missing something; maybe a future version of the DPL will close
that loophole if it becomes an actual problem.)
Second, as several people have noted on this list, patent applications
unfortunately seem to be more effective than defensive publication at
getting prior art under the noses of the patent examiners. So obtaining a
patent for defensive purposes makes it more difficult for others to obtain
patents on the same subject matter.
(Usual disclaimers apply. Nothing you read on bitcoin-dev is legal advice;
don't take legal advice from mailing lists; come on)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:01 PM Nick ODell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Pledging to not use patents offensively defeats the point of owning patents=
.
The point of owning a patent is so that you can use it offensively, either
to
prevent competition, or get licensing fees.
Obtaining a patent for defense doesn't make sense. The litigants you need t=
o
worry about do not produce or make anything. Their 'product' is patent
lawsuits.
Unless you have a patent on using a mail-merge program to sue people, your
defensive patents are useless in that situation.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via
bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current
>> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as
the
>> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology
>> fully proprietary and less valuable.
>
> Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.
>
> So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like
> Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively=
?
>
> https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/
>
> Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.
>
>> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can
>> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL.
>> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)
>>
>> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of
being
>> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same wa=
y
>> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they
>> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the
>> inventions prior joining DPL.
>>
>> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire
>> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what
>> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be
>> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.
>>
>> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if
>> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning th=
e
>> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.
>
> Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by
additionally
> stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more
> humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents
expire!).
>
> If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do
exactly
> that.
>
>> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the
sole
>> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to
Bitcoin
>> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents.
>
> To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to
those
> who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they
support
> software patents.
>
>> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you
>> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US,
where
>> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to
>> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.
>
> Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the
effect
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your
BIP nor
> your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary
> disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.
>
> [1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
> [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=3D=
en
> [3]: Extra nonce pull request:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102
>
>> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to
the
>> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a
>> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license
for
>> the content of the e-mail or BIP.
>
> A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin
> Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?
>
> Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.
>
>
> Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin
Core
> license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the
copyright
> license also has anti-patent protections.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--001a113c037227998e053ed99c10
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">First, non-practicing entities are definitely a problem, b=
ut they're far from the only companies involved in software patent liti=
gation.=C2=A0As you say yourself, one reason companies obtain patents is to=
"prevent competition"=E2=80=94meaning they produce a competing p=
roduct.=C2=A0Look at the billion-dollar lawsuits in the smartphone patent w=
ars.=C2=A0<br class=3D"gmail_msg"><br class=3D"gmail_msg">(Unless you'r=
e referring to "patent privateers" that assert claims and are onl=
y indirectly sponsored and controlled by real tech companies. I don't t=
hink the Defensive Patent License directly addresses that problem=E2=80=94S=
ection 7.1 defines an "affiliate" relatively narrowly=E2=80=94alt=
hough the Apache 2.0 license arguably does, with its broad definition of &q=
uot;Legal Entity." I don't profess to know anything about the reas=
oning behind the DPL's wording, and I may be missing something; maybe a=
future version of the DPL will close that loophole if it becomes an actual=
problem.)<br class=3D"gmail_msg"><br>Second, as several people have noted =
on this list, patent applications unfortunately seem to be more effective t=
han defensive publication at getting prior art under the noses of the paten=
t examiners. So obtaining a patent for defensive purposes makes it more dif=
ficult for others to obtain patents on the same subject matter.<div><br></d=
iv><div>(Usual disclaimers apply. Nothing you read on bitcoin-dev is legal =
advice; don't take legal advice from mailing lists; come on)<br><div><b=
r class=3D"gmail_msg"><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_msg"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
class=3D"gmail_msg">On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:01 PM Nick ODell via bitcoi=
n-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" class=3D=
"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>=
wrote:<br class=3D"gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote gmail=
_msg" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x">Pledging to not use patents offensively defeats the point of owning pate=
nts.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
The point of owning a patent is so that you can use it offensively, either =
to<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
prevent competition, or get licensing fees.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
Obtaining a patent for defense doesn't make sense. The litigants you ne=
ed to<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
worry about do not produce or make anything. Their 'product' is pat=
ent lawsuits.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
Unless you have a patent on using a mail-merge program to sue people, your<=
br class=3D"gmail_msg">
defensive patents are useless in that situation.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev<br class=3D"gma=
il_msg">
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" class=3D"gmail=
_msg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote=
:<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bit=
coin-dev wrote:<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Cur=
rent<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not=
, as the<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin techno=
logy<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> fully proprietary and less valuable.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.<br class=3D"gm=
ail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like<br =
class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defe=
nsively?<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent=
_pledge/" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">https://=
www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/</a><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.<br class=
=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL=
can<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join th=
e DPL.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> (<a href=3D"http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-pa=
tent-license" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">http=
://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license</a>)<br clas=
s=3D"gmail_msg">
>><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat=
of being<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the s=
ame way<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if=
they<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the<=
br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> inventions prior joining DPL.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not =
hire<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and w=
hat<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may=
be<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.<br class=
=3D"gmail_msg">
>><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice),=
so if<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company own=
ing the<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.<br =
class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by =
additionally<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or m=
ore<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents exp=
ire!).<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Roots=
tock do exactly<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> that.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals,=
the sole<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger t=
o Bitcoin<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents=
.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger main=
ly to those<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they su=
pport<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> software patents.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosur=
e), you<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the =
US, where<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specifi=
c to<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had th=
e effect<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in you=
r BIP nor<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on volun=
tary<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.<br cla=
ss=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> [1]: BIP: <a href=3D"https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">https://github.c=
om/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki</a><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT <a href=3D"https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015=
077378A1?cl=3Den" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">=
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=3Den</a><br class=3D"gmail=
_msg">
> [3]: Extra nonce pull request: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/b=
itcoin/pull/5102" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">=
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102</a><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and propos=
al to the<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users=
a<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable lic=
ense for<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
>> the content of the e-mail or BIP.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users".=
Does Bitcoin<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?<br class=3D"g=
mail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.<br class=3D"gmail_ms=
g">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bit=
coin Core<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the =
copyright<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> license also has anti-patent protections.<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> --<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> <a href=3D"https://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_ms=
g" target=3D"_blank">https://petertodd.org</a> 'peter'[:-1]@<a href=
=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"=
_blank">petertodd.org</a><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> _______________________________________________<br class=3D"gmail_msg"=
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" class=3D"gmai=
l_msg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=
=3D"gmail_msg">
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">https://lists=
.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br class=3D"gmail_msg=
">
><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"gmail_msg">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" class=3D"gmail_msg=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"g=
mail_msg">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" class=3D"gmail_msg" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linu=
xfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br class=3D"gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>
--001a113c037227998e053ed99c10--
|
