Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail•com>
To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO" <jose.femenias@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:24:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADL_X_cNdhydrn0D0vXSXK1s42dC7-n_7oW2TQJcpvkG6Oa0ow@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1-fEnQxjX40c-sjUYpfLpJtS-fy5t244vUOZSb8Pm=MrQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2259 bytes --]

If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly:

"Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins."

The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word
Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me
that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an
entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant
projects into submission.

In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social /
marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack
should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should
be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of
any form.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>:
>
> ***
> NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES
> THE NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLESS
> THE SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCOIN
> (CORE) BLOCKCHAIN
> ***
>
>
> That's better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be the trademark
> holder - Satoshi?)
>
> This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally verified
> to be perfectly compatible from using the name.
>
> It also adds legal uncertainty.
>
> Another major problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older
> versions of Bitcoin, not people using existing independent blockchain
> implementations and renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever.
>
> And what happens when an old version is technically incompatible with a
> future version by the Core team due to not understanding various new
> softforks? Which version wins the right to the name?
>
> Also, being unable to even mention Bitcoin is overkill.
>
> The software license also don't affect the blockchain data.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3687 bytes --]