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
|
Return-Path: <danrobinson010@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0787FDCB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com (mail-ua0-f179.google.com
[209.85.217.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74D4735F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f179.google.com with SMTP id i15so12056596uak.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:46:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=0IEhhw/lCHhR6wcSForqmF3DnWdmP1P4ED942U+rQJk=;
b=VauoYzEf5XUi4poiHFXgQ7P7+Vt8Vdy+PiEk0IDfsQxIAJyrWe4eymmlZzYWOthp0Q
Nkzg0BuqHn0QYzZ01tl83UjzDduezW/4U4dkbPBMxw+SD/+xQgV670g5Lyu8nVYP00NM
cS17w2EKiA4d59Iex6Ve3z0nFvYzgKr55xhCM1WVRGeTNenDM8q8CgzWmv4GA5oS9tj/
4xlsrCo2WDZdarCTfXlFnoAMGt9OX0oAblF8JsZDX1tIo9CiISJaj2UL40J4675fndAj
cbBBLv3CZWDStWsLxA4QwuXYXZWWbonZXNnZ19YyTq1SKTKxofdVrDkQQiKOEW7okTk6
X05A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=0IEhhw/lCHhR6wcSForqmF3DnWdmP1P4ED942U+rQJk=;
b=qQUYv0FF4AwiIwkd7j/g/MPhixtlp7s36X4NqRPjcjqFBKkawr1hE9pq821VmhKyIH
Trx0r8CkrxmRpLgMd/vLQe7fKpmRGY+ZocWnn3kA1CgkLbmZs/u+058WAvDDa7ohUalv
qD3O8PmwiXvWR+vLioNEBocbDWUyrl8/1yX7JBWtLMjIlY5EqXX/bcg+q4lZHFV53YBb
M4Dami1RHYu6TZYDvlbef7+CLJW4NUP38/ztZwpK6XNx/yRCmFnbV0fqyFkHBwbAYFcp
VfzkWQ+X8K65C5RF81J2h6cDXbbXMf79QlKWYxX7/a7ZlCATLyftnk85JRG+qWDS962H
5jNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBQoAgfugNbPoFhRyed4Pyk+TtLGEXiWOtHtAtjIrEKRAxKz9T2
kuLZ1djt6k38ieB0EzybNYo0+s/lXpXFiZQmAf4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226E8o5KbgX+Zyi+d07ejFHdvzBGRrEkoaPxBcQc9u39sIjNcjdv6grl4DDJgXIgTpkQPXYTYxakNpglCPMW7mQ=
X-Received: by 10.176.1.194 with SMTP id 60mr1887620ual.135.1518543989432;
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:46:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEPKjgfJxFebb2NaoT1Jet9_wzcpTbQvq0jk+d6Qi6DZExJB=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEPKjgfJxFebb2NaoT1Jet9_wzcpTbQvq0jk+d6Qi6DZExJB=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Robinson <danrobinson010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD438HtV4UUKZ=UsHQky8kYfgLZQCgJ0aQoe15KSBqNcQujk1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Ficsor <adam.ficsor73@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:53:39 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license
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: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:46:31 -0000
--001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every
deviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms
is a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization
trying to use the software. You don=E2=80=99t want users having to clear th=
eir use
of Bitcoin Core through their employers=E2=80=99 legal departments, whether=
or not
they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think such
a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I agree with the opposition on changing the license, because of the
> branding attacks.
>
> However having two coins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game
> from a security point of view. It may not be a bad idea to consider
> changing the license in a way that only limits cryptocurrencies with the
> same Proof Of Work, since they directly affect the stability and security
> of Bitcoin.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every deviatio=
n in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms is a maj=
or compliance headache from the perspective of any organization trying to u=
se the software. You don=E2=80=99t want users having to clear their use of =
Bitcoin Core through their employers=E2=80=99 legal departments, whether or=
not they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think =
such a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.<br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor =
via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I agree with the opposition on changin=
g the license, because of the branding attacks.<br><br>However having two c=
oins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game from a security point o=
f view. It may not be a bad idea to consider changing the license in a way =
that only limits cryptocurrencies with the same Proof Of Work, since they d=
irectly affect the stability and security of Bitcoin.<br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--001a1135de4610e79205651b93ad--
|
