Thank you. We hadn't seen that before.=C2=A0 It is an = interesting discussion.

We did think about including som= e references to protections for private keys while they remained in your co= ntrol and you could prove as much. In theory it should be no different to d= ropping money on the floor. The money still belongs to you, even if someone= else comes along and finds it. The onus of proof is on you as the owner to= demonstrate private keys are yours, but you also need the goodwill of the = person finding the money.

However, this raised a n= umber of issues including whether finding private keys attached to coins an= d moving the funds constituted theft, in which case there are already crimi= nal protections if you are able to track the coins to an individual. We dec= ided not to include anything specific in the draft licence to keep it simpl= e, relying instead on the generic definitions of rights to private trans= action data of which private keys would come under.

Regards,

Ahmed

On Tu= e, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> = wrote:

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 a= t 8:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
We belie= ve the network requires a block chain licence

= Here is a previous discussion of this topic (2012):
https://bitcoi= ntalk.org/index.php?topic=3D117663.0

- Bryan
= http://heybryan.org/=
1 512 203 0507

--001a11c1d63ed919dc051eb0f64e-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2509F134D for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:06:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DCB3243 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:05:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbmp1 with SMTP id mp1so2512961lbb.1 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:05:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4bnF87Zu1XFaTTWIV1tc5+25p3Co80zgJrvQ5JVMlR8=; b=GroLq/mg4WQZssTCBeIu0Xj+fObCt8+GXOmBnX8z2OUlU0cO2uW+Te7s0iK3wpmGd0 10H2gIgvsG/gwtsKHcCGJg3+7s3pecngqBVz5/9ynj27wrrxWOaL6Mw2UsKcKne5hHSm kdmXybwTEgiTZRg+T/fS51RdE/8Zbd99V2bb8P4icbOx7sEhog25U4rrCKyWffya2/8a aq2ytF8VdeAPhssVhNHUAj27lGQus1yB1YsNYLxgyWdQEq94XqqvvfjvR5yxk3vWU1Ks UqxVaiULm0PFbB7wih9/dhh93H99slrvfv8/DsqnNqXR5hqvVG71EkW5mgxWf9L/u0Xy nl/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.23.167 with SMTP id n7mr13631450laf.108.1441123551192; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.220.225 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.220.225 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:05:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: Natanael To: Ahmed Zsales Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160a5e658b031051eb1b9e3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:06:01 -0000 --089e0160a5e658b031051eb1b9e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 discussion and evaluation are > here: > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing > > Regards, > > Ahmed > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --089e0160a5e658b031051eb1b9e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 vi= a bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:

Hello,

We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the ex= isting MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference client s= oftware.

Replacing or amending the existing MIT Li= cence is beyond the scope of this draft BIP.

Ratio= nale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are here:

https://drive.go= ogle.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing

Regards,

Ahmed

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--089e0160a5e658b031051eb1b9e3-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66F801087 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:40:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104EB1D0 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA86D1080051; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:39:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150901:ahmedzsales18@gmail.com::JOfOJ3lhbNVbyibU:aKGfM X-Hashcash: 1:25:150901:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::I5Xi9fL0Crq6XwOo:NPlk From: Luke Dashjr To: Ahmed Zsales Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:39:34 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201509011739.35472.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:40:26 -0000 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 format, not PDF. Thanks, Luke From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939FF1227 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:12:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70ADA243 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so21345630wic.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=304rSk+3vZEMn4xAOjJkl8ufUNTrZcaxqDidZuNpSgY=; b=tHJHU78ssozrQWUoxBXT+aspxhhm5V1cQs7SImamfapwJMzwW8iWLn+q0xtU8X96P0 fdKUaRd5YF6KZG4Eus/XmV4cHHR4s4DROe5hWCD41BfaHP/W+E9mSJlE78fqPz/K8efo KgGp6w1QArAjD1/BZ367Dprl0Ghnm41F8iRN5J7nz3AauHBm/6yMEnxUnnSSEJaMarf0 M/BdVqQrosuE7YdHctv9bVriR3PrYE9OJ7OozESo9rx1M93G5cw64XBX9cbzzHve3RGJ NLToYz6QE2oBYEcdo2td6aL0mYd5DCNTeCjNE5S8HZiZ+uC8WQurozbt7W8iSeXdqs1e 1t/g== X-Received: by 10.180.215.101 with SMTP id oh5mr4972471wic.6.1441131153082; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:12:13 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ahmed Zsales Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:12:35 -0000 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 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 discussion and evaluation are > here: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing > > Regards, > > Ahmed > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DEF10ED for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:37:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E144714E for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbf67 with SMTP id f67so57905775vkb.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=iDvpOdgfHfeuJq+h3bqbW9R8W3kU1O8ppfExx+l0Nl0=; b=duZQ5QWHtskWCKfe0bDgugjP5ELARDjLsoRpUYieQXgBMWeCEB8+7nzYnkPw3UIjGN J+vflHqeUwTJX3DFOTg/07wAp5b3NnUSs5UawNV9KWtXhhG/2LiBCnHykeqsqgg7UUk9 OngIsapqZcU1PKytSBqTKYp10VFsl/PSxApipr6IawiDWHHawLZC47d1D8vCgzVfqWUI 8f56VNVyF16VpZpDrhjEBOnntxNnxVVCI92sUTIeaASt/RtZygkZACrlL2z1cy7xFVKz VcVow+ad7cuMrC2/NPGyZxxUW1xlhssRo9FuucQTv0t6kqT6cgbl0LR7SSTwFTbRakz5 S2rg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.76.232 with SMTP id n8mr21935504vdw.20.1441136219836; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 20:36:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 19:37:01 -0000 --bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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. The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations. At any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a retrospective basis. On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak wrote: > 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 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 discussion and evaluation are > > here: > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing > > > > Regards, > > > > Ahmed > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > --bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That is a very good point.=C2=A0

We considered whether data existing before a licence change would = be covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining permi= ssions 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. Whi= le not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to what is an ot= herwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to be a= nyone who could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this may not = be an issue. It merits further investigation.

The = block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed upon, = if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations. At any rat= e, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a retrospective = basis.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak <= btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:

W= ithout 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
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement th= e
> existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference c= lient
> software.
>
> Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of = this
> draft BIP.
>
> Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation a= re
> here:
>
> https://drive.go= ogle.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing
>
> Regards,
>
> Ahmed
>

> __________________= _____________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893EDFAA for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:36:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 047161A6 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:36:33 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:36:36 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:36:43 -0000 > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F8CFCE for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:51:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA4821C2 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so21187885wic.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:51:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=5gIZyse8gWNYsA1Ajoif3bH4lbPAOCwCB+b7sJZXUfQ=; b=YnFIfRZUnpbOo5/MEWLulKF2RB7B7RR+mCpKKrmJsJr4cyJgUgB6aZjXFY+s56YrJn tGs5jIOUeyrA/gVrx1RvQpJI1+SVvKTdQ4zfffNpvxur/hr2CwWHDAiHfViiud63gn9A KWNpLjnw9epiQ0qBcgHJN0DwJ31/kSnir/69nLRtE9OcHyZ1cPY654QpifRsdY6ar1m6 43a7KII7FLfISCi4Fu/wD/XG64CLBEdkyvngdOR3GNVzyMdN37Xco6j5umgDd2b/hkqd vRV17YQfrGlaM1se18vwDeG7WDKL5fLwuhNqT4qo04YZozGveYA0TNY9uEhau7eyeBVZ ekmw== X-Received: by 10.180.87.37 with SMTP id u5mr335620wiz.42.1441144270591; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl. [89.98.228.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f7sm324111wij.17.2015.09.01.14.51.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:51:25 +0200 From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" To: Ahmed Zsales Message-ID: <20150901215124.GA4870@amethyst.visucore.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:51:13 -0000 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 require a specific license for everything added to the chain. You could of course make the BIP advisory, but I'm not sure what that would help. You still wouldn't have any certainty what license the contents of block #XXXX would be under. Wladimir From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC7561321 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:02:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f42.google.com (mail-vk0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 352B11B0 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbf67 with SMTP id f67so60018579vkb.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:02:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=evOFLPilh0wo8X12N1HIXjNhyFm4DV746ZN21U6G9kI=; b=L4G5vStBnFqiSJZatjCTsZeZnPrOJtPWKbHAnPZaY3xyjMLiKkOoCr9ZQoVByEvF+2 vz9uKPTXSMTfTK6tJC3eApzhzvpd5oHkQkg5Dchq07wbM9jCTjYR+XPvjCNWGLRuHXFK 1SfiZW2t9Xk6+TCIF56q3eT58L4xHUvq6RlHFcH9Aja18CfaXbWsDuJ0GDE92BhLkC7v uSTJ+InvlGZuCHeSPQahlPn2AS5MoSvB9PYGZJKOOHvwjkgk/vfTzFy8HsaQhWFU2qxB Bdxi7tXunErkhDA/CjrsBjUl26A3RGHN/Y4W9vxSbIyS4Ciniadi9uB5mS44M4EhD5hX VXGw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.243.232 with SMTP id xb8mr31829995vdc.40.1441144956292; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:02:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> References: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:02:36 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d63e309488051eb6b5e3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:02:37 -0000 --001a11c1d63e309488051eb6b5e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 > --001a11c1d63e309488051eb6b5e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Russ,

The general points and ques= tions you have raised are covered in the draft BIP:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/v= iew?usp=3Dsharing

Regards,

<= /div>

Ahmed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:

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.=C2=A0 What exactly would be the = purpose of any license?=C2=A0 How can someone be a "beneficiary" = to a license when you can't even explain who holds the license to begin= with?=C2=A0 How do they "benefit?"=C2=A0 I don't see any pur= pose to putting a license on the Core software or the blockchain because no= body can explain who actually holds the license and there is no mechanism t= o enforce any license and there is no revenue to be shared.=C2=A0 The whole= discussion makes no sense.

Russ

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11c1d63e309488051eb6b5e3-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2F7F135C for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:03:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6337615E for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so21402519wic.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=YSqTU4g3YmWgR/QxEZRyLy1FVgrJylW6BpzNFnehj0M=; b=SjWa2bNvYiWwg3XRT1tuVnJS4XA8uHbfAHFk29lNNwbm+1BhtIwOVCc8MxgOXYhfvy 6CJSKIk58aHkG/ikyCK1rAUT0pAzqBuTh//oWaI5Sdki5+7jCotCrilPxe2gMXpFrmEV NDfMWfKW4YxtSxqy9nkUsSidHA/uE7qm1AFngFdpNBXmnrdWYNhYa8BIxRfIwlrgbGaI jsQSQqj2XrOvQFqM306qfZFb8VbcRSmwEabclsdlpA41Bg2kuBa6xU0Mk2mb4Hy98D30 8sxdKgLcUc4KQj1edRd/sLnyZvMSec+ruy+6GkhYv9229AHjUHs0i4RGIEkxVNjnZfyi +SbA== X-Received: by 10.194.121.131 with SMTP id lk3mr34549179wjb.77.1441144992145; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:02:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:02:52 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ahmed Zsales Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:03:14 -0000 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 republish messages? How do you know? What if the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit holes to go down with this train of thought. On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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 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. > > The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed > upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations. At > any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a > retrospective basis. > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak wrote: >> >> 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 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 discussion and evaluation are >> > here: >> > >> > >> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Ahmed >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A3714A6 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:11:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com [209.85.213.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79CF51B9 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbc123 with SMTP id c123so65297792vkb.3 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iXtpMhJw4H9YjiMdzFCxH1f36PutaWIzSHTMdvlvPAc=; b=lc8wNlgB37L5eLhWkZMDbtONQ++VOlgsSW/+Jy6V6zcb0MES4vigZQNDBlmKp0R5/D UlaGn8Kf6yz+HjY0mVV9oeKBFIA5z9t79VCsrtkoFosJgRKoCqMX8sZbAHrErpF2fxYc IJwdjPRmw1ftbUMsdfHS4KJvUrOKxhsLMD9F5hgLYKriArUKXLdF1LlCzEamtqq/q+fl sus++0J9x2Obco6e0Fl48IDpmLeLlV4lThvBs9oomZuJi5AE8phwj4lziYQTws/g21Gx jFX2MsUpWRTQLSE/jQe2vhtXWA38hO5Y7arEQx4OZNWocJIt7b1NSwsHYjNsw00aztES VIfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.243.232 with SMTP id xb8mr31877453vdc.40.1441145516747; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:11:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Btc Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:11:58 -0000 --001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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, Btc Drak wrote: > 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 republish messages? How do you know? What if > the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's > not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit > holes to go down with this train of thought. > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 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 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. > > > > The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed > > upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations. At > > any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a > > retrospective basis. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak wrote: > >> > >> 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 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 discussion and evaluation > are > >> > here: > >> > > >> > > >> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Ahmed > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > > > --001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To avoid repetition, we have actually covere= d the general points and questions you have raised in the draft BIP, which = includes a draft licence to assist discussions:

https://drive.google.com/fi= le/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing

Regards,

Ahmed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1= 1:02 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:

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 republish messages? How do you know? What if
the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit holes to go down with this train of thought.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev

<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:
> 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 per= missions
> for a change to be considered effective.
>
> We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing an= d
> 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.
>
> The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agre= ed
> upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations.= At
> any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a > retrospective basis.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Without commenting on your proposal at all, the general problem wi= th
>> 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
>> <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supp= lement the
>> > existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core re= ference
>> > 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 discussion and eva= luation are
>> > here:
>> >
>> >
>> > https:/= /drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Ahmed
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfound= ation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4522D121D for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:21:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 669221E2 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbcao8 with SMTP id ao8so7846046lbc.3 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:20:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Di6shBY3LaNLPnb5QFvMgyKMui3/YHzQXtpdgYlU5go=; b=e86xGZnjc+pVT4sTQ0IZdz0t5Om4MQgad6e5Ugm3gEVWYp3q9tge/q3VZx2L4loJzu nk7AOt7QvneZIp6uKeNcZIUWXp4uHwq0oUUTJeOv2lJIGcXwKKvttvPvnS6c1nJdC91j GRyFWZCFPjyIEvHN1UQJEI320nvcRhWWBHBtQplcI45w4UcUVrrW7Lvwk3fB+AquT7Pw HM7RjDPI/t9rj0+9t9WCd/c4C765nda9DrGAaSSDBGGJNf0wmh8+lhLFQyQO73x6c1fj TJC9J3GcR+Huy3fBtrwcIwv3kTHML5NNu4MtnktFOEhIjLZLpKumJP+Zdqqvt0pZadfT +/6w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.6.41 with SMTP id x9mr11284311lax.120.1441146059698; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.220.225 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.220.225 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:20:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 00:20:59 +0200 Message-ID: From: Natanael To: Btc Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a9a2f53a4e051eb6f6a9 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:21:02 -0000 --089e0141a9a2f53a4e051eb6f6a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 are all the > parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a > miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if > the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's > not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit > holes to go down with this train of thought. Worse yet - transaction malleability creates derative works with multiple copyright holders (the original one, plus the author of the modification). Is that even legal to do? What to do if a miner unknowingly accepts an illegally modified transaction in a block? And can he who modified it ALSO sue anybody replicating the block for infringement? Better just put everything in public domain, or the closest thing to it you can get. Copyright in the blockchain is essentially the DVDCSS illegal prime mess all over again, but in a P2P network. --089e0141a9a2f53a4e051eb6f6a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Den 2 sep 2015 00:03 skrev "Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= undation.org>:
>
> I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually<= br> > applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you&#= 39;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 republish messages? How do you know? What if<= br> > the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It= 9;s
> not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabb= it
> holes to go down with this train of thought.

Worse yet - transaction malleability creates derative works = with multiple copyright holders (the original one, plus the author of the m= odification). Is that even legal to do? What to do if a miner unknowingly a= ccepts an illegally modified transaction in a block? And can he who modifie= d it ALSO sue anybody replicating the block for infringement?

Better just put everything in public domain, or the closest = thing to it you can get. Copyright in the blockchain is essentially the DVD= CSS illegal prime mess all over again, but in a P2P network.

--089e0141a9a2f53a4e051eb6f6a9-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C41E1478 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:28:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f51.google.com (mail-vk0-f51.google.com [209.85.213.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52F32EC for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbf67 with SMTP id f67so60317424vkb.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=BUkYn0j2O/zfC+FJ5RQU+ocILK1HrN/cAyAe26ZPgKU=; b=0/ZKPoOWBqpGrq/ZwY6cevu1YqSk6tz/CLBwwdevMB0zbMRwG0ZBG9egivGuOiU8G7 c1D29JB/InnyiK94AlSJK/8cSwq9GYcbusWQMoMjY2pJh7Vgalj84Bg3C2QLrehbNqKG 1vNA4Dv2l8tzGPW/525gYrjCQMkA9T9T5mBCg4mkwD4PdwEHzpBnvzsbnQ8geBvFRsMX 2+mjgAyIv192aFAAuDh8xl4sL8MmriCj6pypYyb5UBx050CBNp24s3nx3LWcCrzdP3t9 iu0O1UQJK2XOCYdrYloNS3Mhq7EMyIxaDtLueXb4KPyqk70FkvHGnSAeypNKnsiPrHZa yQ6w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.163.50 with SMTP id yf18mr34149043vdb.93.1441146508668; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:28:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ce38b7f6fb051eb71139 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:28:30 -0000 --001a11c2ce38b7f6fb051eb71139 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 obfuscate transaction ownership. Regards, Ahmed On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Natanael wrote: > > 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 are all the > > parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a > > miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if > > the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's > > not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit > > holes to go down with this train of thought. > > Worse yet - transaction malleability creates derative works with multiple > copyright holders (the original one, plus the author of the modification). > Is that even legal to do? What to do if a miner unknowingly accepts an > illegally modified transaction in a block? And can he who modified it ALSO > sue anybody replicating the block for infringement? > > Better just put everything in public domain, or the closest thing to it > you can get. Copyright in the blockchain is essentially the DVDCSS illegal > prime mess all over again, but in a P2P network. > --001a11c2ce38b7f6fb051eb71139 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Your points ar= e interesting, but they are covered:=C2=A0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELz= BMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing

You= r general point:=C2=A0"Be= tter just put everything in public domain" is the reason why Bitcoin w= orks, but taken to the extreme it is an argument against attempts to obfusc= ate transaction ownership.

Regards,

Ahmed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Natanael <nata= nael.l@gmail.com> wrote:

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<= br> > applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you&#= 39;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 republish messages? How do you know? What if<= br> > the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It= 9;s
> not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabb= it
> holes to go down with this train of thought.

Worse yet - transaction malleability creates derative= works with multiple copyright holders (the original one, plus the author o= f the modification). Is that even legal to do? What to do if a miner unknow= ingly accepts an illegally modified transaction in a block? And can he who = modified it ALSO sue anybody replicating the block for infringement?

Better just put everything in public domain, or the closest = thing to it you can get. Copyright in the blockchain is essentially the DVD= CSS illegal prime mess all over again, but in a P2P network.

--001a11c2ce38b7f6fb051eb71139-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 491C1EE8 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:42:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB200E0 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:42:36 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55E629DF.3030407@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:42:39 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:42:46 -0000 > 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 the copyright on a block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain). A copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some other purpose of putting a license on intellectual property? Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners or users to use any specific license that you come up with? There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any kind of sense: "In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." I have no idea what this means or what court cases you are referring to. "The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a notice that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the blockchain data? You are not that entity and neither are the developers. If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license. "[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through cryptograph security." I have no idea what this means. It is certainly not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners publishing their transaction data. Russ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50FE610AF for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:47:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8880CE0 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibz8 with SMTP id z8so47135705wib.1 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:47:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Vpf1V+cCFlTgIS/fAE7ligR0KYO5ScL9dCja7ZVCASc=; b=RY53f8q8RFKpLeznm5T1fufNoaqveECKJG5NHaOY4jA8b/P047JZJXCUpG5FRr5Rmh Wm9zKerrT7ZCCY95WnCpUaIcMlG/SXGi9QVCM5z7OZ70uiHuD7hobnGCouu0uBST/qx+ uUgjT74310nEugzzb/h35ZzKQQLoxEKwCOOTJDj8Gxe+Awek9rmdyHkwBnblTOm7XLMI MnIT/tm8lG1ACtgBVwqA56ed8oAsRNXerodEQ/NdLmGVRXlAC7Y8fC+halBjwi8wgPgL vMPPeLzJDwqfqG/w/vuwtVeFjreCbtgpk8Q+LeG9yp/uaCkVIQ69RutqE0VpZhUwSjlG 8VIA== X-Received: by 10.194.191.164 with SMTP id gz4mr36074825wjc.21.1441147650250; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:47:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:47:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:47:10 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ahmed Zsales Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:47:32 -0000 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 data is public domain and unrestricted based on various assumptions. You make some assumptions that transaction authors use Bitcoin Core to "contract with the network", but in fact transactions are written and broadcast by a number of means, arguably very few are created by Bitcoin Core these days. How exactly do you expect to get a legally binding agreement from all future transaction authors agreeing to your terms? How would you prove Alice agreed 10 years later? If it was a proprietary system like Paypal who can force you to agree or close your account, the Bitcoin protocol is permissionless and anyone can author a transaction using any means they like, not just Bitcoin Core. So again I come back to the point your proposal would have to get permission from all existing authors, and all future authors to work. Overall I think the proposal is trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing and get into a quagmire in the process. In fact, I see it as an impossible task. On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Ahmed Zsales wrote: > 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, Btc Drak wrote: >> >> 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 republish messages? How do you know? What if >> the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's >> not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit >> holes to go down with this train of thought. >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> > 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 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. >> > >> > The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed >> > upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations. >> > At >> > any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a >> > retrospective basis. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 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 discussion and evaluation >> >> > are >> >> > here: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > Ahmed >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > 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 >> > > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EB881254 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:21:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com (mail-vk0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2087418A for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkhf67 with SMTP id f67so66612037vkh.1 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=R0JKe7+i4V9ad+garNah1zADNoKoYVSUN36Y3QPz+iM=; b=iw9sDPOSBGJY9mjfTT5iCanBAeOVuWy5BSLH5uJkYC15ggVkRZAgcehBDxCtF7y1zn kzNdcDCZWCBbzndfGEjP/Ac1atQvjk3l/lzoXrIFWSPfem0a8+cXOZt10yXx/aOBdGcD Q0W8OaTbiqU3COg2yiGUXODL97LCt44Qq98+6Zy7f+yUzmtBl4Avj1FPH0uiSO5PZ5M8 nhBvSNVtyjszM2/j2xTGdtHgG/IzyqiNd4J0rtbNiRqNbaUwjJbaAK7Zq3rD9YQYX9dS l77awJRSHdX1piEgFeFi1gQ5ldX4JFoYZpBmuj0gMQ9EJIdscwBlGeiXRXQfGSTVznUV 2oWQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.243.232 with SMTP id xb8mr32187322vdc.40.1441149690356; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55E629DF.3030407@bitcoins.info> References: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> <55E629DF.3030407@bitcoins.info> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 00:21:30 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Milly Bitcoin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:21:32 -0000 --001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 why. > "A copyright is about protecting revenue" ## Not always. It can also be about saying you have a right to something and you give up those rights. There are likely to be many examples where this could be applied, for example - if you transact with someone and government agencies develop the means to reveal your transaction, a licence gives protections which might otherwise not be there in the absence of a licence. The MIT licence does something similar - the Core developers give up their rights to revenue from the software. Not wishing to go down rabbit hole, why not just remove the MIT licence? > "it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a license to control data owned by someone else." ## It is up to us to produce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP discussion process. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to legal advice, that will be helpful. > "Then the miner can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their web site" ## I would oppose any wording that attempted to do anything of the sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain is in the public domain. We have included references to royalty free use of the data. > "If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license." ## The original reference client did everything. A block chain licence was probably not envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which was intended. Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to assign rights to miners is just that, a proposal. I would just like to labour the point that users pay to use the network, but they have no defined rights, anywhere. Regards, Ahmed On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 the copyright on a > block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get > copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge a > fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their > web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes > it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain). A > copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some other purpose of > putting a license on intellectual property? > > Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a > license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners > or users to use any specific license that you come up with? > > There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any > kind of sense: > > "In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for > databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." I have no idea what > this means or what court cases you are referring to. > > "The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own > intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a notice > that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the blockchain > data? You are not that entity and neither are the developers. If there > are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license. > > "[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through > cryptograph security." I have no idea what this means. It is certainly > not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once > again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot > dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners > publishing their transaction data. > > > Russ > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is good feedback. Thank yo= u.

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 chai= n and more importantly why.=C2=A0

> "A copyright is about protecting rev= enue" ## Not always. It can also be about saying you have a right to s= omething and you give up those rights. There are likely to be many examples= where this could be applied, for example - if you transact with someone an= d government agencies develop the means to reveal your transaction, a licen= ce gives protections which might otherwise not be there in the absence of a= licence. The MIT licence does something similar - the Core developers give= up their rights to revenue from the software. Not wishing to go down rabbi= t hole, why not just remove the MIT licence?=C2=A0

> "it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up wit= h the form of a license to control data owned by someone else." ## It = is up to us to produce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP dis= cussion process. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to= legal advice, that will be helpful.

> "Then the miner can charge a fee f= or any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their web s= ite" ## I would oppose any wording that attempted to do anything of th= e sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain is in the public domain. We h= ave included references to royalty free use of the data.

> "If there are = rights it is up to miners to come up with their license." ## The origi= nal reference client did everything. A block chain licence was probably not= envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which was intended= . Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to assign rights= to miners is just that, a proposal.=C2=A0

I would just like to labour the po= int that users pay to use the network, but they have no defined rights, any= where.=C2=A0

Regards,

Ahmed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

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:=C2=A0 To put a license on something you have to own i= t in the first place.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a b= lock they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get copyrig= ht protection but let's just pretend).=C2=A0 Then the miner can charge = a fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at thei= r web site.=C2=A0 They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who dist= ributes it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain).=C2= =A0 A copyright is about protecting revenue.=C2=A0 Is there some other purp= ose of putting a license on intellectual property?

Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a li= cense to control data owned by someone else.=C2=A0 How can you force miners= =C2=A0 or users to use any specific license that you come up with?

There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any= kind of sense:

"In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections fo= r databases which have been ruled upon by the courts."=C2=A0 I have no= idea what this means or what court cases you are referring to.

"The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and canno= t own intellectual property rights.=C2=A0 What is the purpose of you puttin= g a notice that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the= blockchain data?=C2=A0 You are not that entity and neither are the develop= ers.=C2=A0 If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their lic= ense.

"[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through crypt= ograph security."=C2=A0 I have no idea what this means.=C2=A0 It is ce= rtainly not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with.=C2= =A0 Once again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else = cannot dictate the terms of the license.=C2=A0 They could charge a fee for = miners publishing their transaction data.

Russ

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11c1d63e5caccf051eb7cf57-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85DB8C87 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:39:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from omr-a016.mx.aol.com (omr-a016e.mx.aol.com [204.29.186.65]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2B4D167 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:39:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mtaomg-aak01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-aak01.mx.aol.com [172.27.2.227]) by omr-a016.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 15A223800076 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-ada01c.mail.aol.com (core-ada01.mail.aol.com [172.27.0.1]) by mtaomg-aak01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id C74C738000085 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:39:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 162.227.126.201 by webprd-a78.mail.aol.com (10.72.92.217) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 01 Sep 2015 19:39:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:39:43 -0400 From: hurricanewarn1@aol.com To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-Id: <14f8b47cd5b-1774-e482@webprd-a78.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_70164_69233588.1441150782801" X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: JAS STD X-Originating-IP: [162.227.126.201] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1441150785; bh=eMrxdRjn2S3apCR2R+ccSejm9V5GEX1bH7WEaS9cEgA=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Kavwza+qZWexFfKmv+hBHwf0jkua5ERoZJfgk0Lm4fdqLMx5o5tFau+tTPhecKFcG OhG4mNy38AAPEQhFaVs/eDS5MhT6JCaRV2zf5ZEpMp3qF8U/J/SVHtQt1KlbF4WaLk j61ZAoS7Q7iKWpWWZAXt8JD62sqQ3UMaxkVhT+p8= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1b02e355e6374044f4 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:39:46 -0000 ------=_Part_70164_69233588.1441150782801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The only reason someone would want to make a license is so they can sue/threaten people for not following the license rules. At best this is pointless since Bitcoin cannot be controlled, and at worst it will result in a group of people using coercion against the community to gain profits. There is no legal ground for anyone to make a Bitcoin license, it simply wouldn't stand in court. Not even the MIT license is valid or meaningful. But I wouldn't be surprised if people tried scaring people with a license even if they knew it was invalid. It's actually disgusting that you wrote what people are allowed and not allowed to do with Bitcoin. Pure centralization ideology. Maybe go work for the government and make regulations instead of trying to centralize one of the only de-centralized things left on the planet. -----Original 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[xxxx] Draft 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 discussion and evaluation are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing Regards, Ahmed _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev ------=_Part_70164_69233588.1441150782801 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The only reason someone would want to make a license is so they can sue/threaten people for not following the license rules. At best this is pointless since Bitcoin cannot be controlled, and at worst it will result in a group of people using coercion against the community to gain profits.

There is no legal ground for anyone to make a Bitcoin license, it simply wouldn't stand in court. Not even the MIT license is valid or meaningful. But I wouldn't be surprised if people tried scaring people with a license even if they knew it was invalid.

It's actually disgusting that you wrote what people are allowed and not allowed to do with Bitcoin. Pure centralization ideology. Maybe go work for the government and make regulations instead of trying to centralize one of the only de-centralized things left on the planet.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 9:30 am
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft

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 discussion and evaluation are here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing

Regards,

Ahmed

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing
list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

------=_Part_70164_69233588.1441150782801-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C2B1226 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:41:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C32154 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:40:53 -0400 References: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> <55E629DF.3030407@bitcoins.info> From: Milly Bitcoin To: Bitcoin Dev Message-ID: <55E63788.3070409@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:40:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:41:03 -0000 > 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 = someone else has a liability for violating those rights. As it is now a user would have the right to sue all the miners, node operators, and developers collectively. Of course that is not realistic which is the way a decentralized system should be. If you want to try to define specific entities that have liability then they must be in control or otherwise they would not be liable. Russ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E382B1264 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:56:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (mail-oi0-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7032132 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oibi136 with SMTP id i136so1813495oib.3 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 01:56:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=nmadEBF33QmIkzUBa02vflnufPg7UfILUGnNTr4FZp4=; b=fdopEcatmfcjNT/I1kg9OaRuglyxjsLeRP2xtfNLempBkFWRPhmoxKuUBw0mArtoHV LXDeUV4DJIXG6zjfy6f30utea8AsYc2O77+67x8yj662kO5MhPn2DK6gtQaqn28W+XnL JNR7CXTePSOXUgNbGqw87s+RJ/BjrA/189kn/cG3QQkqamF3YPxI/Lw2Au+TEjHFRbBr pe9sv6i0IXjhvt1F0kli8SecIBwOHcwdaWf3vA8QVg8Han19iUxUPnE1Gasd2IZvMxd8 ldlOnLACf172NI8P0bbnyX+lfMR0waiaqgHrA+o21YWXssZocqC61u4GQ9mTQZZ8XBn4 uhWA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.107.212 with SMTP id g203mr11644114oic.36.1441184191006; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 01:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.77.199 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:56:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:56:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Warren Togami Jr." To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11407438c2d067051ebfd71a X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 08:56:33 -0000 --001a11407438c2d067051ebfd71a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 during my previous career in Open Source Software where copyright matters a great deal. As each owner of a > coin makes a transfer by digitally signing a hash of the previous > transaction along with the > new owner=E2=80=99s public key, the block chain is a perpetual compilatio= n of > unique data. > *It is therefore compiled in a creative and non-obvious way.* In the USA, > for example, these > attributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled > upon by the courts. This portion of your paper I believe is not true and requires citations if you want to be convincing. Is it truly "creative and non-obvious"? My understanding under at least U.S. law, the blockchain may not be entitled to copyright protection because a compilation created in a mechanical manner is not a creative work of a human. I suppose a transaction could contain a "creative" element if it contains arbitrary bytes of a message or clever script. For the most part though most of what you call "digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction along with the new owner=E2=80=99s public key" is purely the result of a me= chanical process and really is not creative. Furthermore, even if that output were "non-obvious", obviousness has nothing to do with copyrightability. Your license is correct in intent in attempting to exclude from the royalty free grant works within the blockchain that themselves may be subject to copyright of third parties. The elements within the blockchain may be entitled individually to copyright if they are in any way a creative work of a human, but as a compilation I am doubtful the blockchain itself is entitled to copyright. I understand copyright with respect to databases can be different under other jurisdictions. Your paper mentions the European database law that is indeed different from the U.S. Your paper is incomplete in scholarly and legal citations. I myself and we as a community don't know enough. I suppose this topic merits further study. Warren Togami On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 clie= nt > software. > > Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of thi= s > draft BIP. > > Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are > here: > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Ds= haring > > Regards, > > Ahmed > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a11407438c2d067051ebfd71a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am skeptical that any license for the blockchain it= self is needed because of the possibility that the blockchain is not entitl= ed to copyright protection.=C2=A0 While I am not a lawyer, I have stared ha= rd at the copyright doctrine of the U.S. in multiple law school Intellectua= l Property courses and during my previous career in Open Source Software wh= ere copyright matters a great deal.

As each owner of a
coin makes a transfer by digitally signing a hash = of the previous transaction along with the=C2=A0
new owner=E2=80=99s pub= lic key, the block chain is a perpetual compilation of unique data. It is=C2=A0
therefore compiled in a creative and = non-obvious way. In the USA, for example, these=C2=A0
att= ributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled upon b= y the courts.

This portion of your pa= per I believe is not true and requires citations if you want to be convinci= ng.=C2=A0 Is it truly "creative and non-obvious"?=C2=A0 My unders= tanding under at least U.S. law, the blockchain may not be entitled to copy= right protection because a compilation created in a mechanical manner is no= t a creative work of a human.

I suppose a transact= ion could contain a "creative" element if it contains arbitrary b= ytes of a message or clever script.=C2=A0 For the most part though most of = what you call "digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction al= ong with the new owner=E2=80=99s public key" is purely the result of a= mechanical process and really is not creative.=C2=A0 Furthermore, even if = that output were "non-obvious", obviousness has nothing to do wit= h copyrightability.

Your license is correct in int= ent in attempting to exclude from the royalty free grant works within the b= lockchain that themselves may be subject to copyright of third parties.=C2= =A0 The elements within the blockchain may be entitled individually to copy= right if they are in any way a creative work of a human, but as a compilati= on I am doubtful the blockchain itself is entitled to copyright.

<= div>

I understand copyright with respect to databas= es can be different under other jurisdictions.=C2=A0 Your paper mentions th= e European database law that is indeed different from the U.S.=C2=A0 Your p= aper is incomplete in scholarly and legal citations.=C2=A0 I myself and we = as a community don't know enough.=C2=A0 I suppose this topic merits fur= ther study.

Warren Togami

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6= :30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@list= s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Hello,

We believe the network requires a block cha= in licence to supplement the existing MIT Licence which we believe only cov= ers 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 discus= sion and evaluation are here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg= /view?usp=3Dsharing

Regards,
Ahmed

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11407438c2d067051ebfd71a-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDFE10A5 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:28:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com (mail-vk0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6244F1C2 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:28:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbc123 with SMTP id c123so12951136vkb.3 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=i0/ZFSdIzxXq/ePNkS+xYmr2+IuJcPdSPaZcq5vUP9g=; b=Y41IF1Xu4UQAD6ASViwUZpOBz3NAPwRIKratv+ZCXgGxCJxJo9JsQFugakDvVn5QQ+ fVDYBPezlVBxSIsspFCL9jLHIDaCDl6sWBhNpx0IekN1PqCbEVdrtk8fXscymo7NEf9R WxAHFqsj2rwlfMFCnzqqsW4lEj2t3X0mZisdC/emFHeDK6BuhqSQQN0kDsIr2D19xsTt DoJ8qajYXXO6pO/Blt7d16EjmikjxdXQDuNvPUIInhu096L92QnGQlZkXcD2zRr/Q6bN R+zhZzJkFOq/0l14gMPN1YQ0MZXHjMAIGqj8ihG7S9TQgQm3PazkKvemvjrkHKNUn0oD 0jDg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.76.232 with SMTP id n8mr31160911vdw.20.1441225733506; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:28:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: "Warren Togami Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501c594e30f17051ec983bd X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 20:28:56 -0000 --bcaec501c594e30f17051ec983bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 investigations and possibly engage some input from a few miners. 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*. We also found some general database protection details which are relevant to the USA, if you need any bed time reading: http://copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html For now, thanks to everyone for feedback and comments. Regards, Ahmed On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I am skeptical that any license for the blockchain itself is needed > because of the possibility that the blockchain is not entitled to copyrig= ht > 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 during my previous career in Open Source Software where copyright > matters a great deal. > > As each owner of a >> coin makes a transfer by digitally signing a hash of the previous >> transaction along with the >> new owner=E2=80=99s public key, the block chain is a perpetual compilati= on of >> unique data. >> *It is therefore compiled in a creative and non-obvious way.* In the >> USA, for example, these >> attributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled >> upon by the courts. > > > This portion of your paper I believe is not true and requires citations i= f > you want to be convincing. Is it truly "creative and non-obvious"? My > understanding under at least U.S. law, the blockchain may not be entitled > to copyright protection because a compilation created in a mechanical > manner is not a creative work of a human. > > I suppose a transaction could contain a "creative" element if it contains > arbitrary bytes of a message or clever script. For the most part though > most of what you call "digitally signing a hash of the previous transacti= on > along with the new owner=E2=80=99s public key" is purely the result of a = mechanical > process and really is not creative. Furthermore, even if that output wer= e > "non-obvious", obviousness has nothing to do with copyrightability. > > Your license is correct in intent in attempting to exclude from the > royalty free grant works within the blockchain that themselves may be > subject to copyright of third parties. The elements within the blockchai= n > may be entitled individually to copyright if they are in any way a creati= ve > work of a human, but as a compilation I am doubtful the blockchain itself > is entitled to copyright. > > I understand copyright with respect to databases can be different under > other jurisdictions. Your paper mentions the European database law that = is > indeed different from the U.S. Your paper is incomplete in scholarly and > legal citations. I myself and we as a community don't know enough. I > suppose this topic merits further study. > > Warren Togami > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 cli= ent >> software. >> >> Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of >> this draft BIP. >> >> Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are >> here: >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3D= sharing >> >> Regards, >> >> Ahmed >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --bcaec501c594e30f17051ec983bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Warren, very good feedback.

To a= void taking up too much of everyone's time at this point, I think=C2=A0= 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 investigati= ons and possibly engage some input from a few miners.=C2=A0 We don't wa= nt to play at being lawyer, but our review does point towards this being so= mething worth coming back to.

In terms of citation= , we did reference a case called Feist. We also found some general d= atabase protection details which are relevant to the USA, if you need any b= ed time reading:

http://copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html=C2=A0

<= div>

For now, thanks to everyone for feedback and comments.

Regards,

Ahmed

On Wed, Sep 2, 20= 15 at 9:56 AM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev <bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

I am skeptical that any license for th= e blockchain itself is needed because of the possibility that the blockchai= n is not entitled to copyright protection.=C2=A0 While I am not a lawyer, I= have stared hard at the copyright doctrine of the U.S. in multiple law sch= ool Intellectual Property courses and during my previous career in Open Sou= rce Software where copyright matters a great deal.

As each owner of a
coin makes a transfer by digitally = signing a hash of the previous transaction along with the=C2=A0
new owne= r=E2=80=99s public key, the block chain is a perpetual compilation of uniqu= e data. It is=C2=A0
therefore compiled in = a creative and non-obvious way. In the USA, for example, the= se=C2=A0
attributes confer legal protections for databa= ses which have been ruled upon by the courts.

This portion of your paper I believe is not true and requir= es citations if you want to be convincing.=C2=A0 Is it truly "creative= and non-obvious"?=C2=A0 My understanding under at least U.S. law, the= blockchain may not be entitled to copyright protection because a compilati= on created in a mechanical manner is not a creative work of a human.

<= div>

I suppose a transaction could contain a "creative&q= uot; element if it contains arbitrary bytes of a message or clever script.= =C2=A0 For the most part though most of what you call "digitally signi= ng a hash of the previous transaction along with the new owner=E2=80=99s pu= blic key" is purely the result of a mechanical process and really is n= ot creative.=C2=A0 Furthermore, even if that output were "non-obvious&= quot;, obviousness has nothing to do with copyrightability.

<= /div>

Your license is correct in intent in attempting to exclude from t= he royalty free grant works within the blockchain that themselves may be su= bject to copyright of third parties.=C2=A0 The elements within the blockcha= in may be entitled individually to copyright if they are in any way a creat= ive work of a human, but as a compilation I am doubtful the blockchain itse= lf is entitled to copyright.

I under= stand copyright with respect to databases can be different under other juri= sdictions.=C2=A0 Your paper mentions the European database law that is inde= ed different from the U.S.=C2=A0 Your paper is incomplete in scholarly and = legal citations.=C2=A0 I myself and we as a community don't know enough= .=C2=A0 I suppose this topic merits further study.

Warren Togami

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Ahm= ed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun= dation.org> wrote:

Hello,

We believe the netw= ork requires a block chain licence to supplement the existing MIT Licence w= hich we believe only covers the core reference client software.
<= br>
Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the = scope of this draft BIP.

Rationale and details of = our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are here:

<= div>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwE= bhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing

Regards,

Ahmed

__________________________________________= _____
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev