📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:> 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
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 17:39:02
in reply to nevent1q…as7u
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:02Event JSON
{
"id": "f62968b4a531e8b82fab77d0abceb4f1199e7e57ca9281eefd5e75d555c46263",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686159542,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"89a8564b0381eb9568c793c79e358089ddd2d980a31babc3b47efd374cf7b99e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"58c5504d17d24944cebfa994764fba50467ed0d6b8bb007f087bc52c571825b8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7d32854c9e442b53f36bfc2759c2b0fe2808c32770662bac6a548f04346c503d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01\n📝 Original message:\u003e The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the\n\u003e draft BIP:\n\nNo, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.\n\nNumber one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it \nin the first place.\n\nLet's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a \nblock they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get \ncopyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge \na fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at \ntheir web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who \ndistributes it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the \nblockchain). A copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some \nother purpose of putting a license on intellectual property?\n\nAlso, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a \nlicense to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners \n or users to use any specific license that you come up with?\n\nThere are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any \nkind of sense:\n\n\"In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for \ndatabases which have been ruled upon by the courts.\" I have no idea \nwhat this means or what court cases you are referring to.\n\n\"The Bitcoin Core Miners\" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own \nintellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a \nnotice that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the \nblockchain data? You are not that entity and neither are the \ndevelopers. If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with \ntheir license.\n\n\"[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through \ncryptograph security.\" I have no idea what this means. It is certainly \nnot intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once \nagain, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot \ndictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners \npublishing their transaction data.\n\nRuss",
"sig": "6aedd5f392ffab12ea51fd94de9979f6fdf3ea4263efa6267aa8b8087200c8281d7a7eb64ba168642a94fefdc1137ff157344119bad1f1d81b455a5279c76181"
}