1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A608087A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net (outmail149075.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.75])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1D8AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:32:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u9ECW2Po050036;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:32:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u9ECVxx1021072
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:32:00 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C930F4008D;
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id A524920732; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:31:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:31:57 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Daniel Robinson <danrobinson010@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161014123157.GB8499@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAKzdR-oaqUicPhCjfbyX92odVs9LOzvhUOY6nyd9K2RdC_9b_g@mail.gmail.com>
<20161014105757.GA8049@fedora-21-dvm>
<CAD438HswfYG6MZ_4cWVNgCL8HwKWhMs+JvhVUFCnDu0+Hu-D-g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD438HswfYG6MZ_4cWVNgCL8HwKWhMs+JvhVUFCnDu0+Hu-D-g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 3468f53a-920a-11e6-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdwYUF1YAAgsB AmAbWldeU197WWM7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQwdcnpJ Th8eUBhycAcIeXh0 ZUEsXXRdVBJ/dhdg
S0xURHAHZDJmdWgd WRVFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYAht ZkkMNhoURlpDGTg4 VlgEGilnEEsCWioz
a1QsN0JUFlwQNEop eUYnV1UFNRMfBm8W FEZLDi5VKl8KSmI3
CktwXFIVFzxbCTpH DwczSgBw
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough,
but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:32:05 -0000
--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 04:51:01AM -0700, Daniel Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.
>=20
>=20
> Agreed. Also worth noting that it has a potential advantage over unilater=
al
> patent disarmament, analogous to the advantage of copyleft licenses over
> MIT/BSD: it provides an incentive (at least a theoretical one) for other
> companies to adopt it too.
Agreed. That's also one of the reasons (lesser) reasons why I didn't adopt a
patent pledge like blockstream has done. Though frankly the main reason is =
I'm
unlikely to be able to afford to get any patents anytime soon anyway, so it=
's
all symbolic and I'd rather spend as little as possible on lawyers. :) Also=
, my
standard contract that I use with clients prohibits me from getting patents=
on
work I do (and imposes financial penalties on clients who in turn try to ap=
ply
for patents on work derived from mine).
> As many people have proposed, the best option, though one that would
> require a lot of work, might be a dedicated Bitcoin-related defensive
> patent pool=E2=80=94similar to Linux's Open Invention Network=E2=80=94tha=
t could
> strategically deploy patent licenses to incentivize cooperation and punish
> aggressors.
Agreed.
> Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin
> > Core license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure =
the
> > copyright license also has anti-patent protections.
>=20
>=20
> I think Apache 2.0 would be a great license for Bitcoin Core. It not only
> contains an explicit patent license grant (rather than MIT's implicit one=
),
> but terminates that license if the licensee asserts a claim alleging that
> the covered work infringes a patent. That might be an effective deterrent
> against bringing patent claims based on alleged infringement in Bitcoin
> Core.
Indeed. For a codebase that is in large part both a reference implementation
and the very definition of the Bitcoin protocol, we do want a permissive
license to ensure that commercial users are able to use the Bitcoin protoco=
l.
However there is no reason to extend that permissivity to allowing others to
attempt to restrict others' rights to use the Bitcoin protocol via patents.
> (I'm not sure I see a good reason to dual-license under the LGPL3,
> but am curious to hear more.)
Ah, actually I think I misremembered: it'd be Apache2.0/LGPL_v2_ where a du=
al
license would make sense; Apache2.0 is compatibile with (L)GPL3:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html
https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility
(L)GPLv2 doesn't have the patent protections that (L)GPLv3 does, so my
suggestion is wrong; Apache2.0 by itself is perfectly good.
> It would probably be feasible to upgrade to the Apache license for new
> releases and contributions (leaving already-existing code and previous
> releases under the MIT license=E2=80=94so basically a copyright "soft-for=
k"). Has
> this been discussed before? Are there any obstacles or objections?
Yup, that'd be perfectly possible to do. Basically new contributions would =
be
licensed under the new, MIT-compatible, licenses. I did that myself with
python-bitcoinlib, as part of the codebase was licensed MIT, and part LGPLv=
2 or
later; to comply with the latter I changed the license for all new work to
LGPLv3 or later. Interestingly, this has lead to the Bitcoin Core unit tests
using an older version of python-bitcoinlib; kudo's goes to Suhas Daftuar f=
or
dilligently respecting the new license.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYANA6AAoJEGOZARBE6K+yLo4H/2YtorAcnmfFi2hCX6u5vOt9
5DSXICCs8PkCnDxEC/uOuECGMlqI8C3ONw9nrcKgBbpaj2Q6/h3beixJWGTqkf2a
B1mfXO0kzDG64uRlnsBqZyGGK28BBJNiV+akoBl3ukWibHOL4OmfDRmiim6yeH/E
zjWZmMn8k5lAdQ0p4KnYNnbhwprTuHvvYXo2Pj5GUuXzB2Vr3npcs7yi9Rk7Uoxn
zgbPIhfq4w/hzJhdeP6LOKUlKI8GEDc6ZoKtbqTq7DDgyK1GiKigICqKePFeHZkg
RpqYEQ7UUc9w9x4+dcgnrOKc1wyeI/j5zM5jCZ6NuaPCS7mTRsuRUGlbHgmRanw=
=TIgi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk--
|
