Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893EDFAA for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:36:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 047161A6 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:36:33 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55E61A64.2030609@bitcoins.info> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:36:36 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:36:43 -0000 > 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. Like I said, you need to talk to a lawyer. What exactly would be the purpose of any license? How can someone be a "beneficiary" to a license when you can't even explain who holds the license to begin with? How do they "benefit?" I don't see any purpose to putting a license on the Core software or the blockchain because nobody can explain who actually holds the license and there is no mechanism to enforce any license and there is no revenue to be shared. The whole discussion makes no sense. Russ