Possible change to the MIT license
15 messages, 13 Feb 2018. Started by Jose Femenías Cañuelo.
Aymeric Vitte (2), Jameson Lopp (2), Jose Femenías Cañuelo, Natanael, Brian Lockhart, Bedri Ozgur Guler, Patrick Murck, Adam Ficsor, +5 more
Hi,
Bitcoin is licensed under the MIT license (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING>) which is one of the most permissive licenses widely in use. While this almost restriction-less license has proved useful to many software projects, I think it could be wise to question its current suitability for this project, given the recent history.
The difficulty among the general population to distinguish between Bitcoin (the protocol and software) and bitcoin (the currency) arises spontaneously from the intimate entanglement of both. The current list of Bitcoin lookalikes includes: Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin God, Bitcoin Clashic, Super Bitcoin, Bitcoin Hot, Bitcoin X, Oil Bitcoin, Bitcoin World, Lightning Bitcoin...
This recent flurry of hard forks is, IMHO, exacerbating the confusion about the very nature of the project, and harming it in many ways.
Although the liberal MIT license is (rightfully) beneficial to many other projects, companies and individuals, it is my belief that several projects are unfairly taking advantage of this generous license to attack Bitcoin (both the software and the currency), confuse the public, and gain personal profit in a way that is severely harming the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Therefore, I’d like to raise the possibility of amending the MIT license in a simple way, by adding a line such as:
*** 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 ***
(This is just an approximation. A final version would probably have to include a restriction to some soundalikes like BITKOIN, BIITCOIN,…)
This way, I could legitimate use this software to create my own crypto coin, or use it in Ethereum, Litecoin or any of the other legitimate cryptos, but I could not make my “Bitcoin Whatever” fork and keep using this software as the basis for it. I could also fork the bitcoin blockchain to create “Bcoin lightspeed” but not “Bitcoin lightspeed” for instance.
I know this would probably not prevent the explosion of forks in the future, but maybe it could help mitigate the confusion among the users and the harm to this community. Even if its enforceability is dubious, at least any infringing project would be exposed to some liability. I see myself some possible loopholes the way the license addendum is written. My intention is not to arrive immediately to a final wording but to know if there is some value to the idea of changing the license with this purpose.
Jose Femenias
Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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.
I was thinking to post something very similar on this list but not sure that it would get some kind of interest
Not sure how and if it can be done (ie license modification) but the reuse of the bitcoin core code can allow even a child to launch a fork and this mess should stop, maybe people like to get "free" coins but they are misleaded, they can lose everything and there are some more vicious side effects like replay protection collisions between forks, this is already happening, nobody seems to care but I wrote:
Bitcoin Tartuffe, the ultimate fork - User guide: How to create your bitcoin fork in 5mn, fool everybody and become rich https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/user-guide-how-create-your-bitcoin-fork-5mn-fool-everybody-vitte
--> this is a parody of course but very close to the reality, some info are intentionally wrong
The madness of bitcoin forks: risk, reward and ruin https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/madness-bitcoin-forks-risk-reward-ruin-aymeric-vitte/
I don't think that it really impacts bitcoin itself but this is definitely too easy for people to fork the bitcoin core code and launch some shxtty fork
Probably nobody here follow this, as an example (among plenty) see this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2515675.msg30173307#msg30173307 completely absurd mess
Le 13/02/2018 à 13:25, JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
Quoted text (31 lines)
> Hi, > > Bitcoin is licensed under the MIT license (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING>) which is one of the most permissive licenses widely in use. > While this almost restriction-less license has proved useful to many software projects, I think it could be wise to question its current suitability for this project, given the recent history. > > The difficulty among the general population to distinguish between Bitcoin (the protocol and software) and bitcoin (the currency) arises spontaneously from the intimate entanglement of both. > The current list of Bitcoin lookalikes includes: Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin God, Bitcoin Clashic, Super Bitcoin, Bitcoin Hot, Bitcoin X, Oil Bitcoin, Bitcoin World, Lightning Bitcoin... > > This recent flurry of hard forks is, IMHO, exacerbating the confusion about the very nature of the project, and harming it in many ways. > > Although the liberal MIT license is (rightfully) beneficial to many other projects, companies and individuals, it is my belief that several projects are unfairly taking advantage of this generous license to attack Bitcoin (both the software and the currency), confuse the public, and gain personal profit in a way that is severely harming the Bitcoin ecosystem. > > Therefore, I’d like to raise the possibility of amending the MIT license in a simple way, by adding a line such as: > > > *** > 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 > *** > > (This is just an approximation. A final version would probably have to include a restriction to some soundalikes like BITKOIN, BIITCOIN,…) > > This way, I could legitimate use this software to create my own crypto coin, or use it in Ethereum, Litecoin or any of the other legitimate cryptos, but I could not make my “Bitcoin Whatever” fork and keep using this software as the basis for it. I could also fork the bitcoin blockchain to create “Bcoin lightspeed” but not “Bitcoin lightspeed” for instance. > > I know this would probably not prevent the explosion of forks in the future, but maybe it could help mitigate the confusion among the users and the harm to this community. Even if its enforceability is dubious, at least any infringing project would be exposed to some liability. I see myself some possible loopholes the way the license addendum is written. My intention is not to arrive immediately to a final wording but to know if there is some value to the idea of changing the license with this purpose. > > > Jose Femenias > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly:
"Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins."
The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant projects into submission.
In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any form.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (40 lines)
> > > Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
Quoted text (1 line)
> I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments
to defend itself against attacks of any form.
Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels...
But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to “fight fire with fire” (using social / marketing based efforts) who “should” pick up the mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn’t that ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? <ducks and runs for cover>
In any case, it’s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery going unanswered in any “official” capacity.
On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev ( bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org) wrote:
If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly:
"Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins."
The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant projects into submission.
In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any form.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (40 lines)
> > > Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
No, the problem is not bitcoin being under any kind of attack by the forks for me, but the forks fooling people because, again, reusing the bitcoin core code is too easy
I don't know if there can be a legal solution to this which would keep some open source aspect of the code, but at least it deserves to be studied
Le 13/02/2018 à 16:24, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
Quoted text (69 lines)
> If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly: > > "Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins." > > The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the > word Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it > seems to me that the words of the license are basically useless unless > there is an entity that intends to make use of court systems to > threaten noncompliant projects into submission. > > In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / > marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said > attack should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that > Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself > against attacks of any form. > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > > > Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via > bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > <mailto: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. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > <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
Anyone who feels so inclined is free to "pick up the mantle" and defend Bitcoin against perceived social attacks. I don't think that Bitcoin protocol developers have any particular responsibility to do so, and as such this particular discussion is likely going to quickly veer off-topic for this mailing list.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Brian Lockhart <brianlockhart@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (83 lines)
> > I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments > to defend itself against attacks of any form. > > Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels... > > But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to “fight fire with > fire” (using social / marketing based efforts) who “should” pick up the > mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn’t that > ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? <ducks > and runs for cover> > > In any case, it’s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery going > unanswered in any “official” capacity. > > > On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev ( > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org) wrote: > > If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly: > > "Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins." > > The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word > Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me > that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an > entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant > projects into submission. > > In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / > marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack > should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should > be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of > any form. > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > >> >> >> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
Hello, The use of name Bitcoin cannot be avoided due to it's nature of being a Protocol. Prohibition of usage of it as a "brand name" is just like prohibiting the word "Linux", which is the name of the kernel, being used as a brand name or part of a brand name. If that had happened, systems based on Linux kernel couldn't have used Linux word in their brands. The licence in the Linux example is GPL but it does not really differ so much. Making a protocol name a Trademark(TM) name and prohibiting it's use may solve some confusions and bad reputation causing actions but it also prohibits the protocol to be used widely so damages the credibility of the protocol itself which was born to be an independent, freedom-based, government-free, boundaries-free etc. approach to the current corrupted monetary system.
If precautions should be taken to control the usage of Bitcoin word in various positions and cases, it should be done in such a way that it should not contradict with the philosophy of the Bitcoin itself. Social /marketing-based approaches proposed by Jameson Lopp will be more logical and freedom based. Trademarking and in some sense Cartel-ing the Bitcoin Protocol who arose against trademarks and cartels on "money" will destroy it's own roots and birth-right of existence in my opinion.
Bedri Özgür Güler
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (66 lines)
> If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly: > > "Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins." > > The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word > Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me > that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an > entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant > projects into submission. > > In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / > marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack > should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should > be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of > any form. > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > >> >> >> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
This is a poor idea, and agree that it’s largely off-topic. So without wasting too much of anyone’s time here, I’d point out the following.
It is pretty clear that any developer who is subject to a lawsuit from someone using Bitcoin Core software could point to the license (among other things) *defensively* to limit their liability.
But who would be in a position to assert an *offensive* claim that their license terms have been breached? Who would have a right in the software that they are granting via the license? Definitely not the Bitcoin Foundation…
This software is meant to be free and open for anyone to use, unfortunately that means some people will sometimes do things you disagree with.
-pm
On February 13, 2018 at 11:24:37 AM, Brian Lockhart via bitcoin-dev ( bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org) wrote:
Quoted text (1 line)
> I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments
to defend itself against attacks of any form.
Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels...
But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to “fight fire with fire” (using social / marketing based efforts) who “should” pick up the mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn’t that ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? <ducks and runs for cover>
In any case, it’s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery going unanswered in any “official” capacity.
On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev ( bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org) wrote:
If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly:
"Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins."
The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant projects into submission.
In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any form.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (40 lines)
> > > Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
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.
I'd call the license change an attack on bitcoin if its code license prohibited me to play around with it and call it whatever I the fud I want. Other entities like companies, goverments and whoknowswhat might prohibit that (in some countries of the world), but the nature of the source and protocoll shall be Free (as in free speech).
Even if my code changes are compatible with the current blockchain as per bitcoin core I would have the lifetime "threat" that one day my code wouldnt anymore because of changes in bitcoin core, and I wouldnt like to get letters from lawyers earning their money by sending out letters.
Besides I am not fully sure if I could sign the main assumption that the forks "... [are] exacerbating the confusion about the very nature of the project, and harming it in many ways." Or at least I am not sure that the "harm done" __in the end__ is bigger than the gains and the proof-of-spirit as well as all the insights gained through what happens here, regarding Free (well, MIT) Software out in the world. Yes, its not always pleasant but I think its worth it.
-f
On 13.02.2018 16:47, Bedri Ozgur Guler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (101 lines)
> Hello, > The use of name Bitcoin cannot be avoided due to it's nature of being a > Protocol. Prohibition of usage of it as a "brand name" is just like > prohibiting the word "Linux", which is the name of the kernel, being used > as a brand name or part of a brand name. If that had happened, systems > based on Linux kernel couldn't have used Linux word in their brands. The > licence in the Linux example is GPL but it does not really differ so much. > Making a protocol name a Trademark(TM) name and prohibiting it's use may > solve some confusions and bad reputation causing actions but it also > prohibits the protocol to be used widely so damages the credibility of the > protocol itself which was born to be an independent, freedom-based, > government-free, boundaries-free etc. approach to the current corrupted > monetary system. > > If precautions should be taken to control the usage of Bitcoin word in > various positions and cases, it should be done in such a way that it should > not contradict with the philosophy of the Bitcoin itself. Social > /marketing-based approaches proposed by Jameson Lopp will be more logical > and freedom based. Trademarking and in some sense Cartel-ing the Bitcoin > Protocol who arose against trademarks and cartels on "money" will destroy > it's own roots and birth-right of existence in my opinion. > > Bedri Özgür Güler > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > >> If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly: >> >> "Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins." >> >> The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word >> Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me >> that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an >> entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant >> projects into submission. >> >> In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / >> marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack >> should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should >> be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of >> any form. >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
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’t want users having to clear their use of Bitcoin Core through their employers’ 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:
Quoted text (13 lines)
> 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 >
This would give too much power to Bitcoin Core, and implies falsely that Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core are the same thing.
On Tuesday 13 February 2018 12:25:53 PM JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (60 lines)
> Hi, > > Bitcoin is licensed under the MIT license > (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING > <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING>) which is one of > the most permissive licenses widely in use. While this almost > restriction-less license has proved useful to many software projects, I > think it could be wise to question its current suitability for this > project, given the recent history. > > The difficulty among the general population to distinguish between Bitcoin > (the protocol and software) and bitcoin (the currency) arises > spontaneously from the intimate entanglement of both. The current list of > Bitcoin lookalikes includes: Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, > Bitcoin God, Bitcoin Clashic, Super Bitcoin, Bitcoin Hot, Bitcoin X, Oil > Bitcoin, Bitcoin World, Lightning Bitcoin... > > This recent flurry of hard forks is, IMHO, exacerbating the confusion about > the very nature of the project, and harming it in many ways. > > Although the liberal MIT license is (rightfully) beneficial to many other > projects, companies and individuals, it is my belief that several projects > are unfairly taking advantage of this generous license to attack Bitcoin > (both the software and the currency), confuse the public, and gain > personal profit in a way that is severely harming the Bitcoin ecosystem. > > Therefore, I’d like to raise the possibility of amending the MIT license in > a simple way, by adding a line such as: > > > *** > 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 *** > > (This is just an approximation. A final version would probably have to > include a restriction to some soundalikes like BITKOIN, BIITCOIN,…) > > This way, I could legitimate use this software to create my own crypto > coin, or use it in Ethereum, Litecoin or any of the other legitimate > cryptos, but I could not make my “Bitcoin Whatever” fork and keep using > this software as the basis for it. I could also fork the bitcoin > blockchain to create “Bcoin lightspeed” but not “Bitcoin lightspeed” for > instance. > > I know this would probably not prevent the explosion of forks in the > future, but maybe it could help mitigate the confusion among the users and > the harm to this community. Even if its enforceability is dubious, at > least any infringing project would be exposed to some liability. I see > myself some possible loopholes the way the license addendum is written. My > intention is not to arrive immediately to a final wording but to know if > there is some value to the idea of changing the license with this purpose. > > > Jose Femenias > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
I agree that this is a bad idea. When trying to work around a social issue for a highly technical project, a legal hack is certainly not the answer. As Daniel pointed out, the result of such a change would simply be that 100% of all Bitcoin companies would be told by their legal teams to use the last MIT-licensed version of Bitcoin Core as they would have no idea how to prove that they're not in violation. So I think it would succeed in exactly the _opposite_ of its intended purpose.
As Patrick said:
Quoted text (1 line)
> This software is meant to be free and open for anyone to use, unfortunately that means some people will sometimes do things you disagree with.
Bitcoin is a Kleenex, a Q-Tip, a Xerox in the crypto world. I think we should just accept that as a feature at this point. Let other projects faff about with copyright litigation and trademark dilution concerns :)
Besides, I assume many/most developers would be unwilling to accept such a change. Speaking for only myself at least, I would not contribute under that license.
I must admit, though, that it would be fun to read codified No-True-Scotsman appeals in a software license :p.
Cory
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Felix Wolfsteller via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (128 lines)
> I'd call the license change an attack on bitcoin if its code license > prohibited me to play around with it and call it whatever I the fud I want. > Other entities like companies, goverments and whoknowswhat might > prohibit that (in some countries of the world), but the nature of the > source and protocoll shall be Free (as in free speech). > > Even if my code changes are compatible with the current blockchain as > per bitcoin core I would have the lifetime "threat" that one day my code > wouldnt anymore because of changes in bitcoin core, and I wouldnt like > to get letters from lawyers earning their money by sending out letters. > > Besides I am not fully sure if I could sign the main assumption that the > forks "... [are] exacerbating the confusion about the very nature of the > project, and harming it in many ways." > Or at least I am not sure that the "harm done" __in the end__ is bigger > than the gains and the proof-of-spirit as well as all the insights > gained through what happens here, regarding Free (well, MIT) Software > out in the world. Yes, its not always pleasant but I think its worth it. > > -f > > > On 13.02.2018 16:47, Bedri Ozgur Guler via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Hello, >> The use of name Bitcoin cannot be avoided due to it's nature of being a >> Protocol. Prohibition of usage of it as a "brand name" is just like >> prohibiting the word "Linux", which is the name of the kernel, being used >> as a brand name or part of a brand name. If that had happened, systems >> based on Linux kernel couldn't have used Linux word in their brands. The >> licence in the Linux example is GPL but it does not really differ so much. >> Making a protocol name a Trademark(TM) name and prohibiting it's use may >> solve some confusions and bad reputation causing actions but it also >> prohibits the protocol to be used widely so damages the credibility of the >> protocol itself which was born to be an independent, freedom-based, >> government-free, boundaries-free etc. approach to the current corrupted >> monetary system. >> >> If precautions should be taken to control the usage of Bitcoin word in >> various positions and cases, it should be done in such a way that it should >> not contradict with the philosophy of the Bitcoin itself. Social >> /marketing-based approaches proposed by Jameson Lopp will be more logical >> and freedom based. Trademarking and in some sense Cartel-ing the Bitcoin >> Protocol who arose against trademarks and cartels on "money" will destroy >> it's own roots and birth-right of existence in my opinion. >> >> Bedri Özgür Güler >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >> >>> If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly: >>> >>> "Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins." >>> >>> The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word >>> Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me >>> that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an >>> entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant >>> projects into submission. >>> >>> In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / >>> marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack >>> should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should >>> be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of >>> any form. >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
This is ridiculous. We shouldn't bastardize open source principals because someone hurt your feelings.
This is how open source works, stop using it if you don't like it.