I agree that this is a bad idea. When trying to work around a social
issue for a highly technical project, a legal hack is certainly not
the answer. As Daniel pointed out, the result of such a change would
simply be that 100% of all Bitcoin companies would be told by their
legal teams to use the last MIT-licensed version of Bitcoin Core as
they would have no idea how to prove that they're not in violation. So
I think it would succeed in exactly the _opposite_ of its intended
As Patrick said:
> 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.
Bitcoin is a Kleenex, a Q-Tip, a Xerox in the crypto world. I think we
should just accept that as a feature at this point. Let other projects
faff about with copyright litigation and trademark dilution concerns
Besides, I assume many/most developers would be unwilling to accept
such a change. Speaking for only myself at least, I would not
contribute under that license.
I must admit, though, that it would be fun to read codified
No-True-Scotsman appeals in a software license :p.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Felix Wolfsteller via bitcoin-dev
> 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 <
>> email@example.com> 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 <
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
bitcoin-dev mailing list