Author: Milly Bitcoin 2015-09-01 22:42:39
Published on: 2015-09-01T22:42:39+00:00
The draft BIP contains some confusing statements and rules that don't make sense, according to the author. They argue that to put a license on something, you must first own it. They also point out that if miners own the copyright on a block they find, they can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their website, as well as try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes it via Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain. The purpose of a copyright is to protect revenue. It is not up to the author or anyone else to come up with the form of a license to control data owned by someone else. There are several other weird statements in the draft BIP, such as "In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." The author doesn't understand what this means or what court cases the draft BIP is referring to. Additionally, "The Bitcoin Core Miners" cannot own intellectual property rights since it is not an identifiable entity, and neither the developers nor the author can claim to be that entity. Finally, the author is confused by the statement that "[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through cryptograph security." If users have intellectual rights, then someone else cannot dictate the terms of the license, but they could charge a fee for miners publishing their transaction data.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T21:45:02.058168+00:00