📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:> 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
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 17:39:02
in reply to nevent1q…p3pk
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:02Event JSON
{
"id": "9515f9b6afe91a869571c7a022b83d3c88610f911cfb97cc5a306bd8125bc955",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686159542,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"89a8564b0381eb9568c793c79e358089ddd2d980a31babc3b47efd374cf7b99e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5925210719f9a14de63993f93d57d3c037551a0559d113cad5596cb3698fec32",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7d32854c9e442b53f36bfc2759c2b0fe2808c32770662bac6a548f04346c503d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01\n📝 Original message:\u003e We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be\n\u003e covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining\n\u003e permissions for a change to be considered effective.\n\u003e\n\u003e We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and\n\u003e there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new\n\u003e terms. While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to\n\u003e what is an otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to\n\u003e be anyone who could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this\n\u003e may not be an issue. It merits further investigation.\n\nLike I said, you need to talk to a lawyer. What exactly would be the \npurpose of any license? How can someone be a \"beneficiary\" to a license \nwhen you can't even explain who holds the license to begin with? How do \nthey \"benefit?\" I don't see any purpose to putting a license on the \nCore software or the blockchain because nobody can explain who actually \nholds the license and there is no mechanism to enforce any license and \nthere is no revenue to be shared. The whole discussion makes no sense.\n\nRuss",
"sig": "ff7a8265e17e8291cc2f820adfb3baf5303c101317c01dcc2c1f1ae143c89ede5f7d5b7a67eadfb7a88e43a091c462d6896a65ad2dcd287dead226d89b59f352"
}