Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft

From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
To: Ahmed Zsales <ahmedzsales18@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:47:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADJgMzsRCTyGgP2=vn-9VMnYt3HxZL4ocR5abyKAZ81vmnbC5w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADr=VrTAUdfOOYzY8b7OGWphzcwTbJAE7M860ZajmGt1tVpzLA@mail.gmail.com>

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 <ahmedzsales18@gmail•com> 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 <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> 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 <btcdrak@gmail•com> 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
>> >> <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
>> >> > 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
>> >
>
>