Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34A95E25 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:37:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (mail-oi0-f41.google.com [209.85.218.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B7C1D0 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t135so1494071oif.8 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:37:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x8QaDRHehropbXGBrTR0rDFAe0F3p7Hr4JNURHj2irU=; b=l+YYL4U6WwbB95BjFLosVeH0c3dg5j/DacT1epVPbWApKrNuD1gxBPIYk902vhrJrD DOWcp7rPt0+DfDAooZx1dt1xmF9BP9kE3vSKH0o/Zp49c/a8eG61qASPZaePmxdm9Fi1 V76qdBtA6iT9g44WiQ4rGfM9q4UTt8MZfpBCCjNMTOkCivVspOr3RX9eQWMfW2vdyRJh zNuNqlfGwxVIY9UuattxWBBkUBNuTIF/AVyqOEHshyXhx1kUqgXiv8Ua9g5h5HYBbsia 3nMDz61ekqjOI2NLnmURHGiehaTAN67nI6pITfz0JuxK1eh16ZV7H6JLeQh3ZUeDTwpz Ho+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x8QaDRHehropbXGBrTR0rDFAe0F3p7Hr4JNURHj2irU=; b=AkoSxr6VaqQCJnR6qgu6lIDnGzwsKjG0rd2hLcsWB7OPbn1bSQjIEnCLv/UYbaAhSm ljY8SwsdxUfONpu1R/jjyqow+awKP/ZSWTOmn+EEWKk5/jmMFZNpgKA6zUmq8qMzkr/d 1ZlhKKq2NUkygGwynk4PCs71WCpkZd7vK9u98Lvs1qBmwIEn3DOD1QDjEoOIHdRQ6Mbg uC69WYrmTE+rdqtCfPYgkC4saW/tDZcobpfFyjm+p8ZO3ocGMJkbX5+oYQhvYZjYalJJ V5qN6rQV20qXW2IxOF5S/d1QcYPrcsnkNNvjP7MW7rUrIeAbHxx1N9meq155TdjnGpsB RCCg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCX1D61zXlK8I0hHBlawLyOccDmb44v3/bh/k/VuYBE0wp9MHVN sLS8y0wBnsHADMW2yRPY/HkUuKtKtvsQ59iUX7s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224f8tbUyMYGBk9gQxfp1+vNHOjSYSi8WEnEST4r0GLs/ZTfwpzIp39A+7KGgBbGRXDHvry+kbPrGiRaotBOxeM= X-Received: by 10.202.184.130 with SMTP id i124mr1102485oif.197.1518536230478; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:37:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:37:09 -0800 From: Brian Lockhart In-Reply-To: References: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:37:09 -0800 Message-ID: To: Jameson Lopp , Natanael , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ce0f298aa11056519c41b" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:22:39 +0000 Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?JOSE_FEMENIAS_CA=C3=91UELO?= Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:37:12 -0000 --001a113ce0f298aa11056519c41b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any form. Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels... But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to =E2=80=9Cfight fire = with fire=E2=80=9D (using social / marketing based efforts) who =E2=80=9Cshould= =E2=80=9D pick up the mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn=E2=80=99= t that ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? In any case, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery= going unanswered in any =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D capacity. On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev ( bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote: 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 CA=C3=91UELO 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 BITCOI= N > (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 verifie= d > 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 > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --001a113ce0f298aa11056519c41b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable = > I don't thi= nk that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itse= lf against attacks of any form.

Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those = channels...
<= br>
But assum= ing the answer to the perceived problem is to =E2=80=9Cfight fire with fire= =E2=80=9D (using social / marketing based efforts) who =E2=80=9Cshould=E2= =80=9D pick up the mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the questi= on, wouldn=E2=80=99t that ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation wo= uld lead on here? <ducks and runs for cover>

In any case, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to watc= h the ongoing FUD and scammery going unanswered in any =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2= =80=9D capacity.


On February 13, 2018 at= 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev (bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote:<= /p>

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 CA=C3=91UELO via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-de= v@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?)=C2=A0=C2=A0

This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name.=C2=A0

It also adds legal uncertainty.=C2=A0

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.=C2=A0

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?=C2=A0

Also, being unable to even mention Bitcoin is overkill.=C2=A0

The software license also don't affect the blockchain data.=C2=A0


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a113ce0f298aa11056519c41b--