Russ, The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the draft BIP:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing Regards, Ahmed On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be >> covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining >> permissions for a change to be considered effective. >> >> We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and >> there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new >> terms. While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to >> what is an otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to >> be anyone who could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this >> may not be an issue. It merits further investigation. >> > > Like I said, you need to talk to a lawyer. What exactly would be the > purpose of any license? How can someone be a "beneficiary" to a license > when you can't even explain who holds the license to begin with? How do > they "benefit?" I don't see any purpose to putting a license on the Core > software or the blockchain because nobody can explain who actually holds > the license and there is no mechanism to enforce any license and there is > no revenue to be shared. The whole discussion makes no sense. > > Russ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
