DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users

DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users
2016-10-14 10:57 ` Peter Todd
  
From: Sergio Demian Lerner @ 2016-10-14 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2267 bytes --]

I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current
users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as the
future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology
fully proprietary and less valuable.

If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can
enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL.
(http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)

So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of being
sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same way
they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they
joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the
inventions prior joining DPL.

DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire
patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what
rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be
prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.

Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if
Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning the
patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.

Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the sole
existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to Bitcoin
future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents.

If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you
cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US, where
you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to
prevent the publishers filing a US patent.
What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to the
Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a
worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license for
the content of the e-mail or BIP.

I'm not a lawyer and this is not an advise of any kind. Please check
yourself the DPL v1.1 and get your own idea. I'm speaking on behalf of
myself, and not any company.
(http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)

Best regards,
 Sergio.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2678 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-10-14 10:38 [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users Sergio Demian Lerner

  2016-10-14 11:51   ` Daniel Robinson
                     ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2016-10-14 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sergio Demian Lerner, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3981 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current
> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as the
> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology
> fully proprietary and less valuable.

Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.

So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like
Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively?

    https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/

Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.

> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can
> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL.
> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)
> 
> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of being
> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same way
> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they
> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the
> inventions prior joining DPL.
> 
> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire
> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what
> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be
> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.
> 
> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if
> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning the
> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.

Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by additionally
stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more
humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents expire!).

If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do exactly
that.

> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the sole
> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to Bitcoin
> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents.

To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to those
who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they support
software patents.

> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you
> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US, where
> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to
> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.

Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the effect
of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your BIP nor
your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary
disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.

[1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
[2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en
[3]: Extra nonce pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102

> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to the
> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a
> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license for
> the content of the e-mail or BIP.

A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin
Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?

Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.


Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin Core
license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the copyright
license also has anti-patent protections.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-10-14 10:38 [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users Sergio Demian Lerner

  2016-10-14 11:51   ` 
                     ` 
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2016-10-14 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sergio Demian Lerner, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3981 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current
> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as the
> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology
> fully proprietary and less valuable.

Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.

So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like
Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively?

    https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/

Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.

> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can
> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL.
> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)
> 
> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of being
> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same way
> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they
> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the
> inventions prior joining DPL.
> 
> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire
> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what
> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be
> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.
> 
> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if
> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning the
> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.

Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by additionally
stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more
humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents expire!).

If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do exactly
that.

> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the sole
> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to Bitcoin
> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents.

To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to those
who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they support
software patents.

> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you
> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US, where
> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to
> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.

Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the effect
of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your BIP nor
your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary
disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.

[1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
[2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en
[3]: Extra nonce pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102

> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to the
> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a
> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license for
> the content of the e-mail or BIP.

A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin
Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?

Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.


Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin Core
license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the copyright
license also has anti-patent protections.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-10-14 11:51   ` Daniel Robinson

  2016-10-15 10:01     ` Tom Zander
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2016-10-14 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Robinson;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3624 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 04:51:01AM -0700, Daniel Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.
> 
> 
> Agreed. Also worth noting that it has a potential advantage over unilateral
> patent disarmament, analogous to the advantage of copyleft licenses over
> MIT/BSD: it provides an incentive (at least a theoretical one) for other
> companies to adopt it too.

Agreed. That's also one of the reasons (lesser) reasons why I didn't adopt a
patent pledge like blockstream has done. Though frankly the main reason is I'm
unlikely to be able to afford to get any patents anytime soon anyway, so it's
all symbolic and I'd rather spend as little as possible on lawyers. :) Also, my
standard contract that I use with clients prohibits me from getting patents on
work I do (and imposes financial penalties on clients who in turn try to apply
for patents on work derived from mine).

> As many people have proposed, the best option, though one that would
> require a lot of work, might be a dedicated Bitcoin-related defensive
> patent pool—similar to Linux's Open Invention Network—that could
> strategically deploy patent licenses to incentivize cooperation and punish
> aggressors.

Agreed.

> Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin
> > Core license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the
> > copyright license also has anti-patent protections.
> 
> 
> I think Apache 2.0 would be a great license for Bitcoin Core. It not only
> contains an explicit patent license grant (rather than MIT's implicit one),
> but terminates that license if the licensee asserts a claim alleging that
> the covered work infringes a patent. That might be an effective deterrent
> against bringing patent claims based on alleged infringement in Bitcoin
> Core.

Indeed. For a codebase that is in large part both a reference implementation
and the very definition of the Bitcoin protocol, we do want a permissive
license to ensure that commercial users are able to use the Bitcoin protocol.
However there is no reason to extend that permissivity to allowing others to
attempt to restrict others' rights to use the Bitcoin protocol via patents.

> (I'm not sure I see a good reason to dual-license under the LGPL3,
> but am curious to hear more.)

Ah, actually I think I misremembered: it'd be Apache2.0/LGPL_v2_ where a dual
license would make sense; Apache2.0 is compatibile with (L)GPL3:

    http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html
    https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility

(L)GPLv2 doesn't have the patent protections that (L)GPLv3 does, so my
suggestion is wrong; Apache2.0 by itself is perfectly good.

> It would probably be feasible to upgrade to the Apache license for new
> releases and contributions (leaving already-existing code and previous
> releases under the MIT license—so basically a copyright "soft-fork"). Has
> this been discussed before? Are there any obstacles or objections?

Yup, that'd be perfectly possible to do. Basically new contributions would be
licensed under the new, MIT-compatible, licenses. I did that myself with
python-bitcoinlib, as part of the codebase was licensed MIT, and part LGPLv2 or
later; to comply with the latter I changed the license for all new work to
LGPLv3 or later. Interestingly, this has lead to the Bitcoin Core unit tests
using an older version of python-bitcoinlib; kudo's goes to Suhas Daftuar for
dilligently respecting the new license.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-10-14 10:57 ` Peter Todd
  2016-10-14 11:51   ` Daniel Robinson

  2016-10-14 19:01   ` Nick ODell
  
From: Sergio Demian Lerner @ 2016-10-14 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Todd;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1281 bytes --]

Oh God... here we go again..

>
> Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the
> effect
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your
> BIP nor
> your pull-req[3].
>
> This is false. The first sentence of the BIP states: "There are incentives
for miners to find cheap, non-standard ways to generate new work which are
not in the best interest of the protocol".

The BIP actually PROTECTS the network from stealth Shared-Nonce mining and
the fact you rejected it made the Bitcoin network LESS secure because now
we just don't know at what extent it is in use.

Shared-nonce mining can be done with or without that BIP/pull-req.

We didn't disclose more in the BIP because it was not clear if shared-nonce
mining (the fact that Bitcoin had a design flaw) would have a negative
affect on Bitcoin price.

ASICBoost patent may be a patent that protects Bitcoiners from mining
centralization: ASICBoost is the only company that at this point showed
interest in licensing the technology. But I do not control ASICBoost nor
the patent so I cannot do anything about it.

I propose we as a community do a crowdfund to try to license it from that
company (or any other that wants to put theirs in the deal) and put all in
public domain.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1675 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-10-14 10:57 ` Peter Todd
  2016-10-14 11:51   ` Daniel Robinson
  2016-10-14 18:10   ` Sergio Demian Lerner

  2016-10-14 21:07     ` Daniel Robinson
  
From: Nick ODell @ 2016-10-14 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Todd, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Pledging to not use patents offensively defeats the point of owning patents.
The point of owning a patent is so that you can use it offensively, either to
prevent competition, or get licensing fees.

Obtaining a patent for defense doesn't make sense. The litigants you need to
worry about do not produce or make anything. Their 'product' is patent lawsuits.

Unless you have a patent on using a mail-merge program to sue people, your
defensive patents are useless in that situation.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current
>> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as the
>> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology
>> fully proprietary and less valuable.
>
> Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.
>
> So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like
> Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively?
>
>     https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/
>
> Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.
>
>> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can
>> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL.
>> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)
>>
>> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of being
>> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same way
>> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they
>> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the
>> inventions prior joining DPL.
>>
>> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire
>> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what
>> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be
>> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.
>>
>> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if
>> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning the
>> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.
>
> Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by additionally
> stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more
> humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents expire!).
>
> If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do exactly
> that.
>
>> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the sole
>> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to Bitcoin
>> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents.
>
> To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to those
> who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they support
> software patents.
>
>> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you
>> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US, where
>> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to
>> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.
>
> Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the effect
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your BIP nor
> your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary
> disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.
>
> [1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
> [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en
> [3]: Extra nonce pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102
>
>> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to the
>> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a
>> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license for
>> the content of the e-mail or BIP.
>
> A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin
> Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?
>
> Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.
>
>
> Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin Core
> license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the copyright
> license also has anti-patent protections.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-10-14 19:01   ` Nick ODell

  
From: Daniel Robinson @ 2016-10-14 21:07 UTC ( / )
  To: Nick ODell, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Peter Todd



First, non-practicing entities are definitely a problem, but they're far
from the only companies involved in software patent litigation. As you say
yourself, one reason companies obtain patents is to "prevent
competition"—meaning they produce a competing product. Look at the
billion-dollar lawsuits in the smartphone patent wars.

(Unless you're referring to "patent privateers" that assert claims and are
only indirectly sponsored and controlled by real tech companies. I don't
think the Defensive Patent License directly addresses that problem—Section
7.1 defines an "affiliate" relatively narrowly—although the Apache 2.0
license arguably does, with its broad definition of "Legal Entity." I don't
profess to know anything about the reasoning behind the DPL's wording, and
I may be missing something; maybe a future version of the DPL will close
that loophole if it becomes an actual problem.)

Second, as several people have noted on this list, patent applications
unfortunately seem to be more effective than defensive publication at
getting prior art under the noses of the patent examiners. So obtaining a
patent for defensive purposes makes it more difficult for others to obtain
patents on the same subject matter.

(Usual disclaimers apply. Nothing you read on bitcoin-dev is legal advice;
don't take legal advice from mailing lists; come on)

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:01 PM Nick ODell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Pledging to not use patents offensively defeats the point of owning patents.
The point of owning a patent is so that you can use it offensively, either
to
prevent competition, or get licensing fees.

Obtaining a patent for defense doesn't make sense. The litigants you need to
worry about do not produce or make anything. Their 'product' is patent
lawsuits.

Unless you have a patent on using a mail-merge program to sue people, your
defensive patents are useless in that situation.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via
bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current
>> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as
the
>> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology
>> fully proprietary and less valuable.
>
> Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.
>
> So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like
> Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively?
>
>     https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/
>
> Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.
>
>> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can
>> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL.
>> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)
>>
>> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of
being
>> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same way
>> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they
>> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the
>> inventions prior joining DPL.
>>
>> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire
>> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what
>> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be
>> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.
>>
>> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if
>> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning the
>> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.
>
> Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by
additionally
> stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more
> humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents
expire!).
>
> If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do
exactly
> that.
>
>> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the
sole
>> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to
Bitcoin
>> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents.
>
> To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to
those
> who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they
support
> software patents.
>
>> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you
>> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US,
where
>> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to
>> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.
>
> Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the
effect
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your
BIP nor
> your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary
> disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.
>
> [1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
> [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en
> [3]: Extra nonce pull request:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102
>
>> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to
the
>> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a
>> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license
for
>> the content of the e-mail or BIP.
>
> A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin
> Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?
>
> Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.
>
>
> Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin
Core
> license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the
copyright
> license also has anti-patent protections.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
2016-10-14 11:51   ` Daniel Robinson
  2016-10-14 12:31     ` Peter Todd

  
From: Tom Zander @ 2016-10-15 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

On Friday, 14 October 2016 04:51:01 CEST Daniel Robinson via bitcoin-dev 
wrote:
> > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.
> 
> Agreed. Also worth noting that it has a potential advantage over
> unilateral patent disarmament, analogous to the advantage of copyleft
> licenses over MIT/BSD: it provides an incentive (at least a theoretical
> one) for other companies to adopt it too.

This is a very important point and a huge step forward in my opinion.

The downside of MIT/BSD licenses is that companies can take and not give 
back. It doesn't build a community and commonly-shared property. Copyleft 
allows people to take and embrace, but if they extend they have to give 
back. Which is fair, you build it on their stuff...

-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]