đź“… Original date posted:2018-02-13
đź“ť Original message:Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every
deviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms
is a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization
trying to use the software. You don’t want users having to clear their use
of Bitcoin Core through their employers’ legal departments, whether or not
they would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think such
a change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I agree with the opposition on changing the license, because of the
> branding attacks.
>
> However having two coins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game
> from a security point of view. It may not be a bad idea to consider
> changing the license in a way that only limits cryptocurrencies with the
> same Proof Of Work, since they directly affect the stability and security
> of Bitcoin.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180213/3c912384/attachment.html>;
Daniel Robinson [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hy…7jzt2
2023-06-07 18:10:50
in reply to nevent1q…xndr
Author Public Key
npub1hy94r8apyzhxsdl76rtgspps5sdg2d9darnyzlrcfqcwjl073trqc7jzt2Published at
2023-06-07 18:10:50Event JSON
{
"id": "59fce872db449543355352f79dee516c51ade3553f70ac0b2c8e011f2a8ffcca",
"pubkey": "b90b519fa120ae6837fed0d6880430a41a8534ade8e6417c784830e97dfe8ac6",
"created_at": 1686161450,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ecf4011d16456cd371a66df3430f1140a2e38ad8a614da16d50f2f93cda8e487",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4caf0b506aad814e24944b318144dd480bfc5ecdf7dacc2df7cfc1fb5adc9deb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"75f52ac24ef4f05f275587ff218a69c9bb9b3056ac1e2069f918970b6d7d430d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-02-13\n📝 Original message:Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every\ndeviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms\nis a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization\ntrying to use the software. You don’t want users having to clear their use\nof Bitcoin Core through their employers’ legal departments, whether or not\nthey would ultimately approve that use. For that reason alone I think such\na change is not viable, no matter how you phrased it.\nOn Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:27 AM Adam Ficsor via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I agree with the opposition on changing the license, because of the\n\u003e branding attacks.\n\u003e\n\u003e However having two coins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game\n\u003e from a security point of view. It may not be a bad idea to consider\n\u003e changing the license in a way that only limits cryptocurrencies with the\n\u003e same Proof Of Work, since they directly affect the stability and security\n\u003e of Bitcoin.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180213/3c912384/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "92fea87cf6d6c7406a32a1b777590a0808903a080ec8b51441affd064725bff1be923949ab4f198cf7317835479bad7ccd6dd5e6330c67435e71c2f694edf5c2"
}