I'd call the license change an attack on bitcoin if its code license
prohibited me to play around with it and call it whatever I the fud I want.
Other entities like companies, goverments and whoknowswhat might
prohibit that (in some countries of the world), but the nature of the
source and protocoll shall be Free (as in free speech).
Even if my code changes are compatible with the current blockchain as
per bitcoin core I would have the lifetime "threat" that one day my code
wouldnt anymore because of changes in bitcoin core, and I wouldnt like
to get letters from lawyers earning their money by sending out letters.
Besides I am not fully sure if I could sign the main assumption that the
forks "... [are] exacerbating the confusion about the very nature of the
project, and harming it in many ways."
Or at least I am not sure that the "harm done" __in the end__ is bigger
than the gains and the proof-of-spirit as well as all the insights
gained through what happens here, regarding Free (well, MIT) Software
out in the world. Yes, its not always pleasant but I think its worth it.
On 13.02.2018 16:47, Bedri Ozgur Guler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The use of name Bitcoin cannot be avoided due to it's nature of being a
> Protocol. Prohibition of usage of it as a "brand name" is just like
> prohibiting the word "Linux", which is the name of the kernel, being used
> as a brand name or part of a brand name. If that had happened, systems
> based on Linux kernel couldn't have used Linux word in their brands. The
> licence in the Linux example is GPL but it does not really differ so much.
> Making a protocol name a Trademark(TM) name and prohibiting it's use may
> solve some confusions and bad reputation causing actions but it also
> prohibits the protocol to be used widely so damages the credibility of the
> protocol itself which was born to be an independent, freedom-based,
> government-free, boundaries-free etc. approach to the current corrupted
> monetary system.
> If precautions should be taken to control the usage of Bitcoin word in
> various positions and cases, it should be done in such a way that it should
> not contradict with the philosophy of the Bitcoin itself. Social
> /marketing-based approaches proposed by Jameson Lopp will be more logical
> and freedom based. Trademarking and in some sense Cartel-ing the Bitcoin
> Protocol who arose against trademarks and cartels on "money" will destroy
> it's own roots and birth-right of existence in my opinion.
> Bedri Özgür Güler
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev <
> firstname.lastname@example.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 <
>> email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev" <
>>> 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?)
>>> This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally
>>> verified 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 mailing list
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev mailing list