MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com>
References: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:25:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAt2M1-fEnQxjX40c-sjUYpfLpJtS-fy5t244vUOZSb8Pm=MrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?JOSE_FEMENIAS_CA=C3=91UELO?= <jose.femenias@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0822162421fc4e056518c34e"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license
Precedence: list

--089e0822162421fc4e056518c34e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CA=C3=91UELO via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:

***
NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES THE
NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLESS THE
SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCOIN
(CORE) BLOCKCHAIN
***


That's better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be the trademark
holder - Satoshi?)

This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally verified
to be perfectly compatible from using the name.

It also adds legal uncertainty.

Another major problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older
versions of Bitcoin, not people using existing independent blockchain
implementations and renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever.

And what happens when an old version is technically incompatible with a
future version by the Core team due to not understanding various new
softforks? Which version wins the right to the name?

Also, being unable to even mention Bitcoin is overkill.

The software license also don't affect the blockchain data.

--089e0822162421fc4e056518c34e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev &quot;JOSE FEMENIAS CA=C3=91UELO via=
 bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;:<blockquote class=3D"quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>
***<br>
NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES THE=
 NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLESS THE =
SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCOIN (COR=
E) BLOCKCHAIN<br>
***<br></blockquote></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">That&#39;s better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be the t=
rademark holder - Satoshi?)=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto">This would also prohibit any reimplementation that&#39;s no=
t formally verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name.=C2=A0</=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It also adds legal uncert=
ainty.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Another maj=
or problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older versions of Bit=
coin, not people using existing independent blockchain implementations and =
renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto">And what happens when an old version is technically incompa=
tible with a future version by the Core team due to not understanding vario=
us new softforks? Which version wins the right to the name?=C2=A0</div><div=
 dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Also, being unable to even mentio=
n Bitcoin is overkill.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto">The software license also don&#39;t affect the blockchain data.=C2=A0<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div><=
/div></div></div>

--089e0822162421fc4e056518c34e--