The purpose of this list is highly technical discussion, not political disagreements.
Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the bitcoin project? If not, you're wildly off topic.
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 02:00:01PM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:
> Peter, are you really going to try to down vote a decent free and
> open-source proposal that benefits all the Bitcoin community including
> you and your future children because a personal attack to me without any
> logic or basis?
I've suggested a way that you can rectify this situation so we can continue to
collaborate: Have Rootstock adopt a legally binding patent pledge/license. I'd
suggest you do as Blockstream has done and at minimum adopt the Defensive
Patent License (DPL); I personally will be doing so in the next week or two for
my own consulting company (I'm discussing exactly how to do so with my lawyer
right now).
If Rootstock is not planning on getting any patents for offensive purposes,
then there is no issue with doing so - the DPL in particular is designed in a
minimally intrusive way.
Please fix this issue so we can in fact continue to collaborate to improve
Bitcoin.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin- dev