To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CADr=VrRT2tdN0jjkZ7HjjeyqonrHG=j+uh8m1L2nhew7c1gnng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Message-ID: <55E5AB78.3080901@bitcoins.info>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:43:20 -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: <CADr=VrRT2tdN0jjkZ7HjjeyqonrHG=j+uh8m1L2nhew7c1gnng@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft
Precedence: list

> 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.

I suggest talking to a lawyer first.  To have a license you need an 
entity that holds the license.  What entity actually holds the MIT 
license?  There is a copyright notice on the Core Client that claims the 
license is held by the developers.  It that the main core developers, 
anyone who has ever submitted an accepted pull request, or something 
else?  I don't think there is any kind of valid license on the software 
to begin with.  Just posting a notice does not make it true just like 
all those "terms of use" web notices are generally not valid contracts 
(see "click wrap vs. "browser wrap" discussions).

What entity would actually hold a "blockchain license" and who decides 
who would hold the license?  If the developers decide there should be a 
license that means the developers own the blockchain and I don't think 
that is consistent with what is going on here.

Russ