Ahmed Zsales [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01 📝 Original message:Russ, The general points ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:Russ,

The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the draft
BIP:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing

Regards,

Ahmed

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
> Like I said, you need to talk to a lawyer. What exactly would be the
> purpose of any license? How can someone be a "beneficiary" to a license
> when you can't even explain who holds the license to begin with? How do
> they "benefit?" I don't see any purpose to putting a license on the Core
> software or the blockchain because nobody can explain who actually holds
> the license and there is no mechanism to enforce any license and there is
> no revenue to be shared. The whole discussion makes no sense.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150901/4ffe6be7/attachment.html>;