Ahmed Zsales [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01 📝 Original message:This is good feedback. ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:This is good feedback. Thank you.
Very briefly:
> "To put a license on something you have to own it in the first place." ##
The block chain is a database. There are laws to protect databases. We have
suggested who might be best placed to be assigned rights to the block chain
and more importantly why.
> "A copyright is about protecting revenue" ## Not always. It can also be
about saying you have a right to something and you give up those rights.
There are likely to be many examples where this could be applied, for
example - if you transact with someone and government agencies develop the
means to reveal your transaction, a licence gives protections which might
otherwise not be there in the absence of a licence. The MIT licence does
something similar - the Core developers give up their rights to revenue
from the software. Not wishing to go down rabbit hole, why not just remove
the MIT licence?
> "it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a
license to control data owned by someone else." ## It is up to us to
produce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP discussion
process. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to legal
advice, that will be helpful.
> "Then the miner can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants
to display the block at their web site" ## I would oppose any wording that
attempted to do anything of the sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain
is in the public domain. We have included references to royalty free use of
the data.
> "If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license."
## The original reference client did everything. A block chain licence was
probably not envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which
was intended. Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to
assign rights to miners is just that, a proposal.
I would just like to labour the point that users pay to use the network,
but they have no defined rights, anywhere.
Regards,
Ahmed
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the
>> draft BIP:
>>
>
> No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.
>
> Number one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it in
> the first place.
>
> Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a
> block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get
> copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge a
> fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their
> web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes
> it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain). A
> copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some other purpose of
> putting a license on intellectual property?
>
> Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a
> license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners
> or users to use any specific license that you come up with?
>
> There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any
> kind of sense:
>
> "In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for
> databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." I have no idea what
> this means or what court cases you are referring to.
>
> "The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own
> intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a notice
> that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the blockchain
> data? You are not that entity and neither are the developers. If there
> are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license.
>
> "[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through
> cryptograph security." I have no idea what this means. It is certainly
> not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once
> again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot
> dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners
> publishing their transaction data.
>
>
> 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/20150902/5298429e/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:This is good feedback. Thank you.
Very briefly:
> "To put a license on something you have to own it in the first place." ##
The block chain is a database. There are laws to protect databases. We have
suggested who might be best placed to be assigned rights to the block chain
and more importantly why.
> "A copyright is about protecting revenue" ## Not always. It can also be
about saying you have a right to something and you give up those rights.
There are likely to be many examples where this could be applied, for
example - if you transact with someone and government agencies develop the
means to reveal your transaction, a licence gives protections which might
otherwise not be there in the absence of a licence. The MIT licence does
something similar - the Core developers give up their rights to revenue
from the software. Not wishing to go down rabbit hole, why not just remove
the MIT licence?
> "it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a
license to control data owned by someone else." ## It is up to us to
produce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP discussion
process. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to legal
advice, that will be helpful.
> "Then the miner can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants
to display the block at their web site" ## I would oppose any wording that
attempted to do anything of the sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain
is in the public domain. We have included references to royalty free use of
the data.
> "If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license."
## The original reference client did everything. A block chain licence was
probably not envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which
was intended. Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to
assign rights to miners is just that, a proposal.
I would just like to labour the point that users pay to use the network,
but they have no defined rights, anywhere.
Regards,
Ahmed
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the
>> draft BIP:
>>
>
> No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.
>
> Number one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it in
> the first place.
>
> Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a
> block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get
> copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge a
> fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their
> web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes
> it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain). A
> copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some other purpose of
> putting a license on intellectual property?
>
> Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a
> license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners
> or users to use any specific license that you come up with?
>
> There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any
> kind of sense:
>
> "In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for
> databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." I have no idea what
> this means or what court cases you are referring to.
>
> "The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own
> intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a notice
> that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the blockchain
> data? You are not that entity and neither are the developers. If there
> are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license.
>
> "[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through
> cryptograph security." I have no idea what this means. It is certainly
> not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once
> again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot
> dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners
> publishing their transaction data.
>
>
> 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/20150902/5298429e/attachment-0001.html>;