Published on: 2015-09-02T20:58:38+00:00
The discussion revolves around the proposal for a blockchain license to supplement the existing MIT License. One participant, Warren Togami Jr., expresses skepticism about the need for such a license, citing U.S. copyright doctrine and questioning the legal protection of databases. The issue of ownership and licensing of the Bitcoin blockchain is debated, with suggestions made on who should be assigned rights to the blockchain. There are concerns about the centralization of a decentralized system and the potential legal issues surrounding licensing after the fact.The draft BIP is shared for further evaluation and discussion. Additional points raised include the lack of defined rights for Bitcoin users and the public domain status of the Bitcoin blockchain. The need for clarity and guidance in the BIP discussion process is emphasized. There are also discussions on copyright ownership, licensing of transactions, and the potential problems that may arise.Ahmed Zsales proposes that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing, but there are concerns about the practicality and legal implications of this approach. Overall, further investigation and study are recommended to determine the feasibility and necessity of a blockchain license.In a discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Ahmed Zsales suggested that a blockchain license is required for the Bitcoin network. This generated interest and led to a previous discussion in 2012 which was shared by Bryan Bishop. The group also considered references to protections for private keys while they remain under your control and whether or not finding private keys attached to coins and moving the funds constituted theft. However, the decision was made not to include anything specific in the draft license to keep it simple, relying instead on generic definitions of rights to private transaction data which would cover private keys.Ahmed Zsales sent a message to the bitcoin-dev mailing list on September 1, 2015 suggesting that the Bitcoin network needed a blockchain license. This topic was previously discussed in 2012 on bitcointalk.org. Bryan, who signed off on the email, provided his website and phone number for further contact.It has been suggested that a blockchain license is necessary to supplement the existing MIT License, which is believed to only cover the core reference client software. However, before obtaining a license, it is important to determine the entity that holds the MIT License, as just posting a notice does not necessarily make it true. Additionally, there may not even be a valid license on the software in question. If a blockchain license were to be obtained, it is unclear what entity would hold this license and who would make that decision. If the developers themselves were to decide, it would suggest that they own the blockchain, which may not be consistent with the current situation. Therefore, it is recommended to consult a lawyer before proceeding with any licensing agreements.According to the message, there is a belief that the network requires a blockchain license in addition to the existing MIT License, which only covers the core reference client software. However, replacing or amending the existing MIT License is not within the scope of the draft BIP. The rationale and details of the draft BIP for discussion and evaluation can be found in a document shared via Google Drive. The message was signed by someone named Ahmed.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:54:54.719781+00:00