Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A3714A6 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:11:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com [209.85.213.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79CF51B9 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkbc123 with SMTP id c123so65297792vkb.3 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:11:56 -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 :cc:content-type; bh=iXtpMhJw4H9YjiMdzFCxH1f36PutaWIzSHTMdvlvPAc=; b=lc8wNlgB37L5eLhWkZMDbtONQ++VOlgsSW/+Jy6V6zcb0MES4vigZQNDBlmKp0R5/D UlaGn8Kf6yz+HjY0mVV9oeKBFIA5z9t79VCsrtkoFosJgRKoCqMX8sZbAHrErpF2fxYc IJwdjPRmw1ftbUMsdfHS4KJvUrOKxhsLMD9F5hgLYKriArUKXLdF1LlCzEamtqq/q+fl sus++0J9x2Obco6e0Fl48IDpmLeLlV4lThvBs9oomZuJi5AE8phwj4lziYQTws/g21Gx jFX2MsUpWRTQLSE/jQe2vhtXWA38hO5Y7arEQx4OZNWocJIt7b1NSwsHYjNsw00aztES VIfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.243.232 with SMTP id xb8mr31877453vdc.40.1441145516747; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:11:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:11:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ahmed Zsales To: Btc Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 22:11:58 -0000 --001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To avoid repetition, we have actually covered the general points and questions you have raised in the draft BIP, which includes a draft licence to assist discussions: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing Regards, Ahmed On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Btc Drak wrote: > I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually > applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've > got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who are all the > parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a > miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if > the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's > not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit > holes to go down with this train of thought. > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > --001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To avoid repetition, we have actually covere= d the general points and questions you have raised in the draft BIP, which = includes a draft licence to assist discussions:


Regards,
Ahmed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1= 1:02 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if = this actually
applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've=
got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who are all the
parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a
miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if
the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit holes to go down with this train of thought.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:
> 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 per= missions
> for a change to be considered effective.
>
> We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing an= d
> 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 agre= ed
> 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 <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Without commenting on your proposal at all, the general problem wi= th
>> 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
>> <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supp= lement the
>> > existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core re= ference
>> > 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 eva= luation are
>> > here:
>> >
>> >
>> > https:/= /drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=3Dsharing
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Ahmed
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfound= ation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a11c1d63e987272051eb6d60f--