📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:> We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
> existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference
> client software.
I suggest talking to a lawyer first. To have a license you need an
entity that holds the license. What entity actually holds the MIT
license? There is a copyright notice on the Core Client that claims the
license is held by the developers. It that the main core developers,
anyone who has ever submitted an accepted pull request, or something
else? I don't think there is any kind of valid license on the software
to begin with. Just posting a notice does not make it true just like
all those "terms of use" web notices are generally not valid contracts
(see "click wrap vs. "browser wrap" discussions).
What entity would actually hold a "blockchain license" and who decides
who would hold the license? If the developers decide there should be a
license that means the developers own the blockchain and I don't think
that is consistent with what is going on here.
Russ
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 17:39:00
in reply to nevent1q…s5pl
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:00Event JSON
{
"id": "e4b4f40dcb414a4775810175450c376a68f8f9ffd8dfdfc0a52ea77cb02a564d",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686159540,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"89a8564b0381eb9568c793c79e358089ddd2d980a31babc3b47efd374cf7b99e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01\n📝 Original message:\u003e We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the\n\u003e existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference\n\u003e client software.\n\nI suggest talking to a lawyer first. To have a license you need an \nentity that holds the license. What entity actually holds the MIT \nlicense? There is a copyright notice on the Core Client that claims the \nlicense is held by the developers. It that the main core developers, \nanyone who has ever submitted an accepted pull request, or something \nelse? I don't think there is any kind of valid license on the software \nto begin with. Just posting a notice does not make it true just like \nall those \"terms of use\" web notices are generally not valid contracts \n(see \"click wrap vs. \"browser wrap\" discussions).\n\nWhat entity would actually hold a \"blockchain license\" and who decides \nwho would hold the license? If the developers decide there should be a \nlicense that means the developers own the blockchain and I don't think \nthat is consistent with what is going on here.\n\nRuss",
"sig": "cad2a99d8c8343c7432f385857a85ec0c186d2407f8b4f1c110ff1459473aea08e16fd8a128738a448ec96d131b5f9ff397ef44b8cdb2a4c92ec9a953545764a"
}