MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEPKjgfJxFebb2NaoT1Jet9_wzcpTbQvq0jk+d6Qi6DZExJB=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEPKjgfJxFebb2NaoT1Jet9_wzcpTbQvq0jk+d6Qi6DZExJB=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Robinson <danrobinson010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD438HtV4UUKZ=UsHQky8kYfgLZQCgJ0aQoe15KSBqNcQujk1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Ficsor <adam.ficsor73@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license
Precedence: list

--001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every
deviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms
is a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization
trying to use the software. You don=E2=80=99t want users having to clear th=
eir use
of Bitcoin Core through their employers=E2=80=99 legal departments, whether=
 or not
they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think such
a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I agree with the opposition on changing the license, because of the
> branding attacks.
>
> However having two coins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game
> from a security point of view. It may not be a bad idea to consider
> changing the license in a way that only limits cryptocurrencies with the
> same Proof Of Work, since they directly affect the stability and security
> of Bitcoin.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every deviatio=
n in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms is a maj=
or compliance headache from the perspective of any organization trying to u=
se the software. You don=E2=80=99t want users having to clear their use of =
Bitcoin Core through their employers=E2=80=99 legal departments, whether or=
 not they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think =
such a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.<br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor =
via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I agree with the opposition on changin=
g the license, because of the branding attacks.<br><br>However having two c=
oins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game from a security point o=
f view. It may not be a bad idea to consider changing the license in a way =
that only limits cryptocurrencies with the same Proof Of Work, since they d=
irectly affect the stability and security of Bitcoin.<br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad--