MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161002171137.GA18452@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAKzdR-rsy1m-H4fYFuCim5+YJi_C2kgjxymM8A7_nEuqsZoO+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161002161717.GA13915@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAKzdR-qsj80cuq27YP0hCXtSL734G4QatmopLANpynvQYNRU=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161002171137.GA18452@fedora-21-dvm>
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:26:18 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-onnOLNu2Lqw7+8nuUCpQ9_cH7-MdkA-Pv-Yhr_upEC0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c8960813d62053de5224b
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS
Precedence: list

--001a114c8960813d62053de5224b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm not a lawyer, and my knowledge on patents is limited. I guess RSK WILL
endorse DPL or will make the required actions to make sure the things
developed by RSK remain free and open. This was not a priority until now,
but coding was. For me, coding always is the priority.

I will discuss prioritizing this with the team. Remember it took several
years to BlockStream to decide for DPL and not just publish everything as
they were doing. I suppose the decision it was not a simple one, involving
lawyers advise and all. I guess DPL needs to actually patent the things in
order to open them later, and patenting has a very high cost.

Give us time to decide which open source strategy is the best and cheaper
for RSK. At this point I can assert that RSK has not filed any patent not
is planing to.  This proposal is not encumbered by any patents, and
drivechains is actually not RSK's idea, but Paul Sztorc's.


On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> 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
>

--001a114c8960813d62053de5224b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I&#39;m not a lawyer, and my knowledge on patents is =
limited. I guess RSK WILL endorse DPL or will make the required actions to =
make sure the things developed by RSK remain free and open. This was not a =
priority until now, but coding was. For me, coding always is the priority.<=
br><br>I will discuss prioritizing this with the team. Remember it took sev=
eral years to BlockStream to decide for DPL and not just publish everything=
 as they were doing. I suppose the decision it was not a simple one, involv=
ing lawyers advise and all. I guess DPL needs to actually patent the things=
 in order to open them later, and patenting has a very high cost.<br><br></=
div>Give us time to decide which open source strategy is the best and cheap=
er for RSK. At this point I can assert that RSK has not filed any patent no=
t is planing to.=C2=A0 This proposal is not encumbered by any patents, and =
drivechains is actually not RSK&#39;s idea, but Paul Sztorc&#39;s.<br><br><=
div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e">On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Sun, O=
ct 02, 2016 at 02:00:01PM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:<br>
&gt; Peter, are you really going to try to down vote a decent free and<br>
&gt; open-source proposal that benefits all the Bitcoin community including=
<br>
&gt; you and your future children because a personal attack to me without a=
ny<br>
&gt; logic or basis?<br>
<br>
</span>I&#39;ve suggested a way that you can rectify this situation so we c=
an continue to<br>
collaborate: Have Rootstock adopt a legally binding patent pledge/license. =
I&#39;d<br>
suggest you do as Blockstream has done and at minimum adopt the Defensive<b=
r>
Patent License (DPL); I personally will be doing so in the next week or two=
 for<br>
my own consulting company (I&#39;m discussing exactly how to do so with my =
lawyer<br>
right now).<br>
<br>
If Rootstock is not planning on getting any patents for offensive purposes,=
<br>
then there is no issue with doing so - the DPL in particular is designed in=
 a<br>
minimally intrusive way.<br>
<br>
Please fix this issue so we can in fact continue to collaborate to improve<=
br>
Bitcoin.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--<br>
<a href=3D"https://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://petertodd.org</a> &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a114c8960813d62053de5224b--