We don't want to play at being
lawyer, but our review does point towards this being something worth
coming back to.
In terms of citation, we did reference a case called /Feist/.
I don't see how you can possibly conclude this effort is worth any
additional time. The legal reference is: Feist
Thanks Warren, very good feedback.
To avoid taking up too much of everyone's time at this point, I
think Wladimir's suggestion of placing this in a BIP advisory box for a
while is a good one. We did indicate that this might take a while to
gestate.
It is probably for us to do some further investi
I am skeptical that any license for the blockchain itself is needed because
of the possibility that the blockchain is not entitled to copyright
protection. While I am not a lawyer, I have stared hard at the copyright
doctrine of the U.S. in multiple law school Intellectual Property courses
and dur
I would just like to labour the point that users pay to use the network,
but they have no defined rights, anywhere.
That is an interesting point. That is a feature of Bitcoin, not a bug.
If the user did have rights to sue someone then the system would not
be decentralized. User rights = som
riginal Message-
From: Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
To: Bitcoin Dev
Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 9:30 am
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[] Draft
Hello,
We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
existing MIT Licence which we believe
This is good feedback. Thank you.
Very briefly:
> "To put a license on something you have to own it in the first place." ##
The block chain is a database. There are laws to protect databases. We have
suggested who might be best placed to be assigned rights to the block chain
and more importantly
I have read the proposal. I think you missed my point: every existing
transaction author would be required to agree to your proposals for
them to be legal, and that's clearly impossible. You'd also need every
single miner who published a block. You're much better taking the line
that actually, the
The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the
draft BIP:
No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.
Number one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it
in the first place.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own
Your points are interesting, but they are covered:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing
Your general point: "Better just put everything in public domain" is the
reason why Bitcoin works, but taken to the extreme it is an argument
against attempts to obfusc
Den 2 sep 2015 00:03 skrev "Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>
> I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually
> applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've
> got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who ar
To avoid repetition, we have actually covered the general points and
questions you have raised in the draft BIP, which includes a draft licence
to assist discussions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing
Regards,
Ahmed
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Bt
I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually
applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've
got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who are all the
parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a
miner have permission to rep
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
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 02:30:17PM +0100, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
> existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference client
> software.
As long as it's an open system, one can't re
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
That is a very good point.
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 co
Without commenting on your proposal at all, the general problem with
licensing after the fact is you require the permission of every
copyright holder in order to make the change.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We believe the network requires a b
On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 1:30:17 PM Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are
> here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=shari
> ng
BIPs should be in MediaWiki-compatible markdown for
Creative Commons Zero, if anything at all.
It essentially emulates public domain in jurisdictions that do not
officially have a public domain.
- Sent from my tablet
Den 1 sep 2015 15:30 skrev "Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> Hello,
>
> We believe the net
Thank you. We hadn't seen that before. It is an interesting discussion.
We did think about including some references to protections for private
keys while they remained in your control and you could prove as much. In
theory it should be no different to dropping money on the floor. The money
still
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> We believe the network requires a block chain licence
Here is a previous discussion of this topic (2012):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117663.0
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference
client software.
I suggest talking to a lawyer first. To have a license you need an
entity that holds the license. What entity actually holds the MIT
l
Hello,
We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference client
software.
Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of this
draft BIP.
Rationale and details of our draft BIP for di
23 matches
Mail list logo