Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin source code was released with a license clause "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.". Even though SolidCoin uses a substantial portion of the Bitcoin software, "RealSolid" has replaced all the copyright notices with his own. Shouldn't the original Bitcoin copyright notices be kept intact?

Yup, sure should have.

Thx for your contribution, that's the way how open source should work :) People contribute ideas or issues, so that the software can be made better :)

Btw. public software can't be stolen, you should use the correct terms...

Bitcoin isn't public software. It is "Copyright (c) 2009-2011 Bitcoin Developers". While the technical term is "copyright infringement", "theft" works just as well.

Open Source is not public domain.  YOU should use correct terms.

The license under which RealSolid obtains Bitcoin source code requires him to retain the copyright notice.  People can contribute ideas, make derivitive versions (like ScamCoin) but they can't violate the license under which it was released.  It is theft, theft of intelectual property. 

While he probably will never be charged or sued it does give a glimpse into the kind of persons who users of ScamCoin are being asked to trust with any coins they mine or purchase.

Another glimpse added to the burning lensflare…

Yeah, any of the main bitcoin developers could file a DCMA complaint to Realsolids hosting provider pretty easily.

He is supposedly going to release code open source.  Dump your BTC.

He has released the code, but not open source and it doesn't seem he has the intention to.

If the code is released non open source, I think his license might be invalid and you can use the source freely.  I am not a lawyer though.  If you use a gpl project, your project must be gpl too.

Bitcoin is MIT.

It works the same way as website templates with branding, just because you remove their branding doesn't automatically make it yours...

This is a clear cut case of code theft, plain and simple.

Technically he doesn't need to release the source or required it to be open source.  The Bitcoin license is MIT which allows closed source projects.

The one thing he HAS to do is retain the original notice and copyright of the original creators and his arrogance fucked that up.

Yeah and while it is less restrictive than the gpl RS still archived to violate it.
I am beginning to wonder if this was on purpose.

btw: anybody has given oracle a hint yet? He is cheating them on license fees...

Which means that he can do whatever he wants with the code, doesn't have to open the derivative's source. If he distributes the source, he needs to attach this license to it, that's all (EDIT: Yeah OK, probably the binary too, but I don't think that's the problem at hand). This is the intended consequence of the MIT license. For instance, you can include code from Bitcoin in a proprietary POS system.

I wouldn't even touch Bitcoin if it weren't open source in the first place, for good reason. But it's a totally different story. For instance, SolidCoin could release necessary specs to build a fully functional node. In that case there is no need for releasing the client source for the users to trust the system.

It is, it's the same thing with creative commons commercial attributed licenses.
A commercial POS system should have no problems citing that. And for a proprietary version, yes they would have to start from scratch, only the protocol itself doesn't require a license.

Don't think that's the case. I've been licencing my software as BSD and usually use BSD-licensed ones. BSD or MIT licensed code has been included in proprietary software, including Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X.

It isn't clear to me if the notice is required for binary distributions. Could be the case but it would be helpful (to me at least) if you can cite a discussion about it.

He just has no spirit of OPEN SOURCE.

Let me quote the license for you.
It says "all copies". How can that not include binary distributions?

That was made abundantly clear when he pulled this crap with SolidCoin 1.04:

Be that as it may, it's not clearly defined within the license what "the Software" constitutes. It's not clear for me, since I'm not sure whether what is common knowledge and what would hold in a court would coincide. Consider how elaborate the GPL license is.

Well since RealSolid distributed SolidCoin both in source and in binary form, he covered his bases and violated the license no matter how you look at it. Isn't that just swell?

You can choose to keep your contributions under alternate licencing. Only the original GPL code that is used stays GPL if used and must be ackowledged as such.
Like building a proprietary/end user licensed front end on GPL framework.....it happens every day.

Guys Bitcoins is not licensed by GPL.  It is the MIT license.

It allows closed source project.
It allows propretary projects.
It allows derivitve works.
It allows the derivitive to be licensed by any license the author wishes (no copyleft provision).

The ONLY thing it requires is the copyright and notice to be included with any derived distribution.
Somehow RealSolid still managed to figure out how to fuck it up (as well as trying to copyright his stolen work).

RS just wanted to pass the MIT licensed Bitcoin code off as his own work. As a benefit from this, he could attack other chains that copied his ideas for being unauthorized derivative works of SolidCoin.