Felix Wolfsteller [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2018-01-04 to 2018-02-13
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev, ..x..
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:10:47

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-02-13
📝 Original message: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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev" <
>>> bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

2023-06-07 18:09:13

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-01-15
📝 Original message:I am a bit disappointed about the feedback (just received one off-list ;)
), but understand now that this mailing list is protocol-only discussions.
So - sorry for that. Anybody interested can follow progress here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12190
Thanks, Felix
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Felix Wolfsteller <
felix.wolfsteller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey there
> Most source files contain the "default" copyright-header (also build by a
> script in devtools/copyright_header.py), which points out that the MIT
> license can be found in the COPYING file or at http://www.opensource.org/
> licenses/mit-license.php.
>
> However, the provided link is 1) using http where it could use https, 2)
> resulting in a redirect (https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
> anyway.
> I am strongly in favor of using https where possible (I guess there are
> many other non-ssl links in the code base, but lets tackle the easier ones
> first).
>
> I propose that I
> 1) create a issue on github,
> 2) `sed -i` the relevant links,
> 3) create a PR on github,
> 4) come back to the mailing list.
>
> This change would affect a few hundred files I guess.
>
> A question remaining is this change would require a
> copyright-year-extension (to 2018), too.
>
> An example header can be seen e.g. here
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a9a49e6e7e8df13d80a6dc3245ce7e
> f041942e9b/src/consensus/merkle.cpp#L3
>
> I'd be happy about quick feedback - do not know the culture here, yet.
>
> Have fun
> Felix
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180115/9d29b778/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:09:12

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-01-04
📝 Original message:Hey there
Most source files contain the "default" copyright-header (also build by a
script in devtools/copyright_header.py), which points out that the MIT
license can be found in the COPYING file or at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
However, the provided link is 1) using http where it could use https, 2)
resulting in a redirect (https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
anyway.
I am strongly in favor of using https where possible (I guess there are
many other non-ssl links in the code base, but lets tackle the easier ones
first).
I propose that I
1) create a issue on github,
2) `sed -i` the relevant links,
3) create a PR on github,
4) come back to the mailing list.
This change would affect a few hundred files I guess.
A question remaining is this change would require a
copyright-year-extension (to 2018), too.
An example header can be seen e.g. here
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a9a49e6e7e8df13d80a6dc3245ce7ef041942e9b/src/consensus/merkle.cpp#L3
I'd be happy about quick feedback - do not know the culture here, yet.
Have fun
Felix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180104/e83674fd/attachment.html>