summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/37/209d633c758da52fde91c6d94aa846202d7bf4
blob: 2a90c7fceeab35050a617a3a1e21c8c067f97791 (plain)
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
184
185
186
187
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 8FBA69D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:58:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149095.authsmtp.com (outmail149095.authsmtp.com
	[62.13.149.95])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F97D5
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:58:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
	by punt24.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u9EAw1Kd038858;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:58:01 +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 u9EAvxM1062713
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:58:00 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DD824013C;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:53:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 4CE2220732; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:57:57 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20161014105757.GA8049@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAKzdR-oaqUicPhCjfbyX92odVs9LOzvhUOY6nyd9K2RdC_9b_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-oaqUicPhCjfbyX92odVs9LOzvhUOY6nyd9K2RdC_9b_g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 12917c79-91fd-11e6-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	aAdMdwYUF1YAAgsB AmAbWlVeVVV7WWM7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
	T0pMXVMcUQwdcFpJ ex8eVBt1dgYIeX9y bUYsX3JSXUMpck9g
	S08CQXAHZDJmdWgd WRVFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk
	FAgyOXU9MCtqYAht ZkkMNhoURlpDGTg4 VlgEGilnEEsCWioz
	a1QsN0JUFlwQNEop eUYnV1UFNRMfBm8W FEZLDi5VKl8KSmI3
	CktwXFIVFzxbCTpH DwczSgCI
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
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 10:58:04 -0000


--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-=
dev wrote:
> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current
> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as the
> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology
> fully proprietary and less valuable.

Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.

So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like
Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively?

    https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/

Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.

> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can
> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL.
> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)
>=20
> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of bei=
ng
> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same way
> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they
> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the
> inventions prior joining DPL.
>=20
> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire
> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what
> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be
> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.
>=20
> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if
> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning the
> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.

Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by additiona=
lly
stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more
humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents expire!).

If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do exact=
ly
that.

> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the so=
le
> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to Bitco=
in
> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents.

To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to tho=
se
who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they support
software patents.

> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you
> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US, whe=
re
> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to
> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.

Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the eff=
ect
of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your BIP=
 nor
your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary
disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.

[1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
[2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=3Den
[3]: Extra nonce pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102

> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to t=
he
> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a
> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license for
> the content of the e-mail or BIP.

A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin
Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?

Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.


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 copyr=
ight
license also has anti-patent protections.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYALoyAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yf+EH/0YPBCb1poEiV+UJeCdVyYjl
SLh4Z8lDgHS6JbL7mb6t9B9dT5JnVjFpgq1D8K50KaEyxuufmXiIpRlnylJZOr4s
IAmm9XFfbO0jXwMw04z49V3ZyA7rABuue5JrQo0tS841udyaV9stS/vx4vgwl81u
r4r2OblJ3iXB04D1GDHE0NYRP37CHX8HR540gBFS+GMSEoRRQuzPJwSGrpE5zrgq
Hx9/7+LaH0Q2XJzYnzdwj+btPcW8iHC4PGUyl5ia+7dr+t8JRgRHvMtZy+rfTI7P
IFIGFnjdCwetGlewWgdBXjcGafx9+Sc4Ngktas0O04gEYR9q0wVry7lrYVeaGvU=
=zUJV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--DocE+STaALJfprDB--