Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DEF10ED for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:37:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E144714E for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbf67 with SMTP id f67so57905775vkb.0 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=iDvpOdgfHfeuJq+h3bqbW9R8W3kU1O8ppfExx+l0Nl0=; b=duZQ5QWHtskWCKfe0bDgugjP5ELARDjLsoRpUYieQXgBMWeCEB8+7nzYnkPw3UIjGN J+vflHqeUwTJX3DFOTg/07wAp5b3NnUSs5UawNV9KWtXhhG/2LiBCnHykeqsqgg7UUk9 OngIsapqZcU1PKytSBqTKYp10VFsl/PSxApipr6IawiDWHHawLZC47d1D8vCgzVfqWUI 8f56VNVyF16VpZpDrhjEBOnntxNnxVVCI92sUTIeaASt/RtZygkZACrlL2z1cy7xFVKz VcVow+ad7cuMrC2/NPGyZxxUW1xlhssRo9FuucQTv0t6kqT6cgbl0LR7SSTwFTbRakz5 S2rg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.76.232 with SMTP id n8mr21935504vdw.20.1441136219836; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 20:36:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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 19:37:01 -0000 --bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 > 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 > > > --bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That is a very good point.=C2=A0

We considered whether data existing before a licence change would = be covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining permi= ssions 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. Whi= le not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to what is an ot= herwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to be a= nyone 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 rat= e, 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:
W= ithout 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@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement th= e
> existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference c= lient
> 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 a= re
> here:
>
> https://drive.go= ogle.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing
>
> Regards,
>
> Ahmed
>
> __________________= _____________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--bcaec501c59474db01051eb4ac5c--