Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

From: Peter Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 13:24:15 -0400

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 12:18:08PM -0500, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> The purpose of this list is highly technical discussion, not political
> disagreements.
> 
> Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or
> pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the bitcoin
> project?  If not, you're wildly off topic.

I don't know if it is; that's the problem.

Given Sergio's prior behavior of attempting to use patents offensively, it's
perfectly reasonable to suspect that Rootstock does in fact intend to encumber
this proposal with patents. So the obvious thing to do, is for Rootstock to
give us all a legally binding guarantee that they will not be using patents
offensively, eliminating the problem and allowing us to return to productive
collaboration.

Remember that this kind of requirement is very common in standards bodies, e.g.
by having all companies contributing to the standards in question join a patent
pool, or by making legally binding pledges/licenses to ensure any patents they
hold can't be used offensively.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org