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: > 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: > 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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
