Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every deviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms is a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization trying to use the software. You don’t want users having to clear their use of Bitcoin Core through their employers’ legal departments, whether or not they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think such a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I agree with the opposition on changing the license, because of the branding attacks.<br><br>However having two coins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game from a security point of view. It may not be a bad idea to consider changing the license in a way that only limits cryptocurrencies with the same Proof Of Work, since they directly affect the stability and security of Bitcoin.<br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>