Btc Drak [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01 📝 Original message:I think it gets worse. Who ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually
applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've
got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who are all the
parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a
miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if
the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's
not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit
holes to go down with this train of thought.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> That is a very good point.
>
> We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be
> covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining permissions
> for a change to be considered effective.
>
> We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and
> there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new terms.
> While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to what is an
> otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to be anyone who
> could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this may not be an
> issue. It merits further investigation.
>
> The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed
> upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations. At
> any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a
> retrospective basis.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Without commenting on your proposal at all, the general problem with
>> licensing after the fact is you require the permission of every
>> copyright holder in order to make the change.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
>> > existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference
>> > client
>> > software.
>> >
>> > Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of
>> > this
>> > draft BIP.
>> >
>> > Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are
>> > here:
>> >
>> >
>> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Ahmed
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
📝 Original message:I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually
applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've
got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who are all the
parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a
miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if
the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's
not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit
holes to go down with this train of thought.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> That is a very good point.
>
> We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be
> covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining permissions
> for a change to be considered effective.
>
> We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and
> there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new terms.
> While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to what is an
> otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to be anyone who
> could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this may not be an
> issue. It merits further investigation.
>
> The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed
> upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations. At
> any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a
> retrospective basis.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Without commenting on your proposal at all, the general problem with
>> licensing after the fact is you require the permission of every
>> copyright holder in order to make the change.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
>> > existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference
>> > client
>> > software.
>> >
>> > Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of
>> > this
>> > draft BIP.
>> >
>> > Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are
>> > here:
>> >
>> >
>> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Ahmed
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>