Bitcoin Forum

A thought has occurred to me that bitcoins client is released under mit which allows for closed source clients that would give someone an advantage over everyone by modifying the client and not releasing the code. If we changed to GPL this would force anyone who created a modified client to release the source code under the terms of the GPL.

A few thoughts for discussion here:

Do you think switching to GPL would be a good idea?

If someone released a closed source client how could we enforce the GPL?

Would changing to a GPL stifle development in anyway?

Would this make it less likely for new clients to be developed?

I am not sure how it would affect current/existing clients, but I believe switching to gpl would possibly stifle ArtForz's estimated ~25% dominance of block generations and total Bitcoin balance.
Total Bitcoins as of now: 3914550
If ArtForz had 25% of total Bitcoins, then: 978637.5
If each Bitcoin is worth $0.06, then total value: $58,718.25

These figures are not reliable, but are an example.

Here's a better reference:

7.28.2010: <ArtForz> for my opencl sha256 code the 5770 is only 5% faster than the 4870 per core-mhz
block 70800 1280322359

So estimated start time of ArtForz's opencl client was at block 70,800.  Current block count is 78,292.  7,492 blocks.

7,492 * 50btc = 374,600btc.

374,600btc * 25% = 93,650btc

93,650btc * $0.06 = $5,619.

So, it is fairly safe to conclude that ArtForz has approximately ~$5,600ish value (and will most likely increase in value over time)

If they were to sell all bitcoins right now on open exchange markets, they could get a guaranteed amount of ~$2,348.

Perhaps it can be considered that based on the license as it is now that establishments as exemplified above could allow for individuals to dominate large percentages of total Bitcoins and nothing can stop them.  Could this could be a deterrent for the acceptance of Bitcoin and hinder its ability to succeed?  e.g. I haven't the programming/development skills to produce similar works and therefore establish equal or similar amount of block generations and therefore have a disadvantage  to others with proprietary implementations.

While it may be considered to allow for proprietary implementations to establish wider acceptance, it also may be a hinderance to establishing wider acceptance for allowing proprietary implementations.

The GPL doesn't force you to release your source if you don't publish the software publicly. Even the AGPL wouldn't force you to release the source in this case, since you're not really allowing people to interface with your software.

MIT-style licensing is the only way to ensure widespread adoption. Companies won't touch GPLed software.

I did realize this is true on both accounts. I'm not by any mean saying switching to GPL is a super great idea I was just wondering what everyone thought about it. As has been pointed out it would do nothing to stop someone from making a private client which is fine. If someone spends the time to optimize a client and use it to there own gain then that fine so long as they don't control the whole generation of coins. I would compare that make your own client to capitalism, where as if we were to force everyone to release everything so the field was completely level would be loosely like communism.

There we have the whole "FOSS is commie" discussion again.  ;)

I think the use of which FOSS license isn't so much of a deal. I mean, there are a lot of licenses that fall under the OSI definition. And MIT is not so bad. I normally put my software under the GPL, because I like the fact that it is copyleft. But if another dev thinks an other license is better, who am I to judge (I didn't write any code for it). This is the same discussion as GPL vs. BSD (MIT being almost like the BSD license).

AH but, I wasn't talking about FLOSS at all . :D

I meant that by leveling the generation rate across all clients everyone has the same chance to generate a block (well that is if everyone's computer was the exact same) hence commie. Where as if someone make a client to make more khashs then everyone else it's more like capitalism.

I still think we are talking about two different components:

• The clients
• The protocol

The protocol is open (not well documented but it's out there), while the clients do not have to abide to any special restriction AFAIK. Even if we were to enforce a license on the clients by adding a special clause to the protocol agreement, there would be users that modify an open source client, but then they don't sell it so that they can still keep it closed source.
In one of my projects we are using the RPL, which isn't open source in that sense, it specifies that any modifications to the project have to be shared with the original community, but still that doesn't avoid a client being kept closed source from the start.
Once the network has grown enough it'll get really hard for a single entity to ever tip over the balance like ArtForz because there are more people with the resources and they will compete for the top spot, and thus balance things out.

How about a bounty for both the best performing source enhancement and for the best performing community driven rig? Something like the Netflix 1'000'000$ bounty for code improvements?

I'm against any switch to copyleft.  If the primary bitcoin implementation is copyleft, then at some point someone will want/need a copycentre implementation and duplicate a lot of work.  Liberal licensing is the best way to minimize duplicate work.

Heh... no clear view of the current software world? ;)
If you see how many different "duplicate" software packages there are, duplicate work is done a lot (for various reasons, even licenses).
I think even on this forum people are working on a second client (the python client). Having multiple clients does not have to be a bad thing.

Nobody, who is sane licenses stuff that is supposed to be a major implementation of a protocol using a restrictive license as GPL. If you do this now you'd most likely cause a fork anyway, because they want to stay with this license.

When it comes to preventing people from using faster clients there isn't anything you can do. The best thing would be implement it into the main client, so you can be sure nobody dominates because of this. If someone is interested in a stable currency it is better to give it to everyone, because there can be someone who simply has more money to buy FPGAs, GPUs or whatever.

What would really hinder someone to simply ignore the license. With GPL and AGPL software you don't even violate the license, but even a custom license would not stop it.

The MIT (and some others, like BSD) are nice if you want to create standards. That's why most libraries use them and the hardcore-GNU-folks have created a LGPL, but I can't really think of anything that was first implemented using the LGPL and then became a widely used standard. Maybe there is something, maybe much more than I'd expect. I am not a big friend of the GPL, but it's not like I'd hate it. After all it's still Open Source and that's what I care most.

But I think nobody really thinks about relicensing it anyway.

What do you think about creating bounties for performance improvements. Like someone should add support for ATI stream? We could make a thread similar to the EFF donation thread. I know there is a thread about it, but it is most likely not the only possible performance improvement and of course not the only (C)PU.

Protocols are IMHO not licensable anyway.

If you do clean room reverse engineering, you could make a compatible interface to a protocol and would not have to agree with any license.

While I agree that reverse engineering is always a possibility, protocols can be licensed under different Intellectual Property regulations, that may or may not include licenses (see patents...)

Unless he already sold them.

I dont have any problem with MIT license, but there are a lot of companies that are using and developing GPL software. Saying that companies dont like GPL is not true.

The GPL is the same as any other commercial license.  Any company can license a GPL'd software just the same as they would license any other software: by contacting the developer and arranging for a commercial license.

The GPL just adds the EXTRA benefit that you can also use it for free, as long as your code is ALSO open source.

So any company that has a problem with GPL, must have a problem with ALL commercial licenses as well, and thus they are stuck using ONLY software under the MIT or Apache license. Presumably such a company doesn't run Mac or Windows in-house.

Of course those anarcho-capitalits among us who do not recognize "copyright" as natural because it is an attempt to limit what someone else can do with their knowledge and information is not "scarce" as each new copy does not diminish the original owners property.  So you cannot copyright code any more than music or anything else.  Once you share an idea with someone else it is in their head and there is no taking it back nor telling them what they can do.  Copyright does not exist without the state and is ARBITRARY in its duration. 

Conclusion, copyright and licenses only matter to statists.  It is a "monopoly" that is maintained by force vs free competition.   

If you want a "competitive advantage" never release the code.   If you release the code, you have no right to use force to prevent others from using, distributing, or creating derivative works from it.

For a software like this, *only* GPL license makes any sense. It's not about an ideology but rather anyone who would trust proprietary software for their financial transactions and a system like bitcoin is a fool and deserves what's coming for them (which is a lot of stolen "cash"). Using proprietary software may even result in hijacking of the whole bitcoin network if significant portion of people would use such a client. There is no way to reliably test for backdoors or other nasty stuff, any closed-source software should be essentially banished by the bitcoin community. GPL allows you to make private in-house modification as much as you like so that's not an issue at all. The only situation that causes GPL to trigger is when you *distribute* the software to other people, in which case you have to provide sources along with it which is the only way anyone should accept any software dealing with bitcoin anyway.

You have to also realize that there are no legal consequences to any "theft" as using bitcoin from neutral point of view is essentially just moving some arbitrary bits around. So the bitcoin community is expected to self-regulate, which should come in a form of an enforced transparency (by all the users rejecting anything else). Considering any other license than GPL-like is playing with fire and is not going to end well.

I did not realize current bitcoin client was released under MIT license,

This should be changed to GPL IMMEDIATELY!

GPLv3 even protects you from said software to be locked up by DRM so even when it's open-source you would not have access to it. There is no disadvantage to using GPL license really. Anyone spreading FUD about GPL is either not appropriately informed/did not consider all the issues or has an ulterior motive as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to trust any closed-source, that's for sure ... and if significant portion of the bitcoin community is, then I'm going to sell off all my bitcoins and get out as that's a prescription for disaster, sooner or later.

As much as adoption is concerned, I'm not interested in people who feel the need to keep the source closed and hidden from its users to "adopt" anything as I would hope anyone concerned about the success and reliability of the bitcoin network wouldn't either. To complain about weak adoption in that sphere is like complaining about weak adoption by criminals to me. If someone is honest, they should feel no interest in keeping the source closed ... and every sane person would accept ONLY open-sourced software anyway. It's a win-win situation ;)

Ehh.... Macho, bitcoin IS open source. MIT license IS a open source license.
No closed source, proprietary software or DRM here.

If the only library is closed source, then there's a project to make an open source one.

If the only library is GPL, then there's a project to make a non-GPL one.

If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we can stop re-writing it.

I don't question that GPL is a good license for operating systems, especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS.  For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is overdone.

Takeover?
Bitcoin will always be open source, because it is now licensed using the MIT license. This means you can take the code and do pretty much everything with it. Everyone can therefore grab always use and add to it. It's something SOME (I am not talking about anyone in this forum) GPL advocates forget sometimes. I did so multiple times :P
You can't somehow take it away.

Rearing IP. I don't know too much about it, but isn't it somehow free, because there is no patent or something similar yet? As I said I have only minimal knowledge on this topic.

Satoshi,

So you support people taking your code, modifying it to skim bitcoins off the miner, and then releasing the binary without releasing the modified source code?

Syke: While I understand some of the community may not appreciate the manners in which a seemingly friendly community member has established their proprietary product, consider businesses that offer products or services for profit.  Now consider that one of those businesses or entrepreneurial individuals has established a kind of closeness within the community.  Instead of focusing negatively on their activities, they should instead be appreciated that they are nice enough to participate amongst the community directly.  From my observations, puddinpop is providing a valuable service and is handling the negative reviews/feedback as an accepted or nonevil organization/business would.

While I particularly advocate and look forward to an open source implementation, it isn't necessary to aggress on those that conform to such expectancies.  To do so establishes bad reputation for the consumer.  Consumers can be evil too. ^_^

In regards to your comment, an MIT license allows the code to be open source and for anyone and everyone to use and implement bitcoin into anything and everything, whether it is released as open source or established into a viable for-profit product.  To aid in the acceptance of Bitcoin for already-established businesses, MIT is a convenient license that will allow a business to consider Bitcoin.  If the license were GPL, then it would hinder growth/acceptance of Bitcoin throughout well-established businesses.

The particular friendly community member that is offering a product that generates profits is not a well-established business and perhaps the product isn't a kind of product you would expect to pay for, but it is a product nonetheless, and therefore, you must consider evaluating it as such and handle responding, considering and associating with the individual as you would any other business.  Blah blah blah, I'm sure you get my point.

That's exactly the point! I get the impression that many people commenting do not understand the issues involved quiet well enough and get confused a little ... no offense ;)

So I would like to hear a response to that question too ... are you going to support and condone someone taking the code, adding a little eye-candy and little nice features perhaps and distributing this proprietary closed-sourced client to the bitcoin community? As you seem to be actually encouraging that by releasing the code under MIT license.

How are you going to check if there isn't any "bonus" to that eye-candy in the form of a backdoor, if it does follow the protocol correctly, if it doesn't at some point in time just transfer all the bitcoins from everyone to some hardcoded address? Is there any reliable way or are we just supposed to *trust* the publisher?

Why all the trouble to develop a decentralized system with specific goal of eliminating the need for central authority to trust when you then allow this exact thing to be reintroduced in the form of trusting the publisher of your software?

For those who would trade their principles for wider adoption ... I would rather want smaller community of a system I can rely on than a big one that is compromised. As far as I'm concerned, the corporations and "businesses" that won't respect the principles of transparency and openness can stick it! They're going to corrupt it and destroy anyway if they are allowed any larger influence. Did it not occur to you that there is a reason some corporations won't touch GPL? They can not cheat and rip people off with that kind of software ... that translates into lower profits. I don't know about you but I certainly wouldn't miss that kind of "company" ... That's like asking Microsoft to help popularize your OS - they are going to screw you over the first chance they get, it's going to get popular allright but it's going to be no longer the OS you had in mind at first.

Your argument Satochi that it creates duplication of work is a valid one ... it makes cheating and compromising the bitcoin community a hell of a lot easier for anyone who wishes to do so. But I did not realize that was the kind of duplicity we were worried about.

I would like to hear any reasonable scenario where distribution of a proprietary bitcoin software would be acceptable, would *you* accept a proprietary implementation to run on your system? Would you recommend to anybody to use such an implementation? I'm really curious about this ... thank you.

(and sorry, I'm kind of perturbed by the responses ... if you sense any tension from my post it's from frustration that people would even consider running a black box software dealing with bitcoins, incredible!)

That's one obvious consequence of MIT licensing, and has been going on for decades.  I doubt it is a surprise to satoshi, or anyone else.

Either MIT or GPL, both licenses are fine.  MIT has been working great for *BSD and X11; there's no reason why MIT would be problematic for bitcoin.  GPLv3 adds some helpful patent language, that's about it.  Bitcoin's patent problems are in the area of linked libraries (openssl's EC-DSA), not with bitcoin itself, so that does not seem like a large concern here.

Speaking only for myself, as a programmer who has created or worked on dozens of GPL'd projects, including some of the largest in the world (kernel, gcc).

Then those users get what they deserve for using a closed source version, while a reliable open source/MIT version would still be available. If the closed source version is eating their bitcoins they will abandon it soon. There is even the possibility that some person develops a closed source version from scratch and does the same, no MIT/GPL/other license of the current bitcoin client is going to change anything on that.

yeah, it's not surprising at all ... that's why MIT should not be considered in a first place, exactly because it allows this kind of abuse. The question is not whether it is surprising but whether it is desirable, wouldn't you say? If any kind of proprietary software stemming from this would get popular, it's not going to be surprising at all when a hell of a lot of people will get robbed of all their bitcoins ... that doesn't mean we should allow it, does it? I said people are just confused ... talking about whether it is "surprising" the the license allows for obvious abuse rather than talking about eliminating that abuse. Do you support that kind of "obvious consequence" then? It seem to me that you're arguing in its favor.


X11 or BSD are not small client programs that handle your freaking financial transactions, I bet you would be all happy to accept this program I made, it makes credit card transactions a lot easier, you just type in your credit card information into it ... it's real convenient, shall I send it to you? I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem with that, would ya?


It's hard to believe that such an intelligent person would make such comments you just did then ... I'm startled.

Binaries may contain suspect code regardless of the license.  Yet 999 out of 1000 users prefer binaries, because they are not programmers and would have no clue what to do with source code in their hands.

The source (ie. download origin, and PGP signer) of the software is always far more paramount, if you are worrying about bitcoin theft and other abuse.



BSD OS's handle tons of financial transactions.  Wall Street loves Linux, but it's got plenty of BSD in there too.

Oh gosh, I have to calm down ... it really is hard for some people to grasp this. Please listen to yourself, you're saying that using closed source client is a bad idea, do I understand that right? And you are encouraging people to use the open-source MIT one over the closed source one, right? That means people should really use only the open-source version to not get screwed ... what. is. the. point. of. the. MIT. license. then!? The MIT license is specifically designed to allow for closed source derivatives! If you're saying that people should only use open-source one without the risk of getting "what they deserve" if they don't ... you are in total agreement with me and you are making the exact same argument for using GPL as I am. Why do you feel the need to make excuses for MIT license then? Do you not like me personally that you just have to disagree with me for some reason? Or is this some ego thing about "winning an argument" or something? I honestly do not understand why people do this, it's frustrating. You may not like me, you may not like my style, you may enjoy arguing or whatever but I beg you to leave that behind and look at the facts and logic instead, please!


Ok, one by one:

1) Proprietary version doesn't mean that it will be doing only things that you'll easily notice, it can have backdoors, it can be dormant for several years and then rob a half the community at some point effectively destroying bitcoin (but still making a huge profit for whoever has done this)

2) Yes, there is a possibility that someone will develop a client from scratch, is there any reason you can think of that we should make that possibility much higher by making it easy to do? I love this logic, let's all put wallets on our front porch ... they could just taken them by stealing them in a crowded bus anyway, so what's the harm.

All you've written are excuses to do nothing ... not reasons to have MIT license, you did not say why MIT would be preferable to GPL, you just made excuses for the additional and unnecessary pitfalls of MIT. There is no reason to keep these pitfalls if there are no benefits that outweigh them. I see no benefits to MIT, only unnecessary dangers. The only supposed "benefit" is the possibility of closed sourced forks which you yourself said are dangerous and discouraged. So I really do not see why would you have any rational reason to disagree with me.

I can't believe this, what are you arguing here? The same question, is this something about "winning an argument"? NONE of what have you written is ANY reason WHATSOEVER to use MIT over GPL. Why are you making up excuses (ridiculous at that) for the pitfalls of MIT rather than stating why would MIT be more advantageous to GPL? There is an easy answer for that, because there isn't any rational advantage to it! Is it surprising that I'm going mad here over that kind of silly things you say?

There is really simple thought process behind this to decide this question, please answer these one by one:

1) Would you personally accept closed source software dealing with your bitcoin transactions running on your station? (in that case I'm going to send you that credit card utility I told you about)
2) Would you recommend to anybody else to use closed source implementation of the bitcoin protocol? (not yours with your backdoor to make a buck ;) I mean third-party software)
3) If you would not use closed source yourself and did not recommend to others to use such a software, what good is an option to fork existing implementation and make one?

See? Real easy .. I do not see any reason why would you want to fight a battle against GPL, why would you be against GPL? It makes no sense.

The only other option would be to *trust* the publisher of the software, in that case I would ask why use bitcoin at all? Its very design is centered about the idea of eliminating central authority that has to be trusted. You can just as well use regular dollars and *trust* the federal reserve and the US government to take care of your currency ... that turned out well, right? Do you want the same thing to happen to bitcoin?

Binaries compiled from open source code can potentially be confirmed by the community that the binaries are indeed related to a particular svn snapshot of source code.  I am not sure how, but I am sure this is possible to confirm.

Binaries compiled from closed source code can not be confirmed by the community that the binaries are indeed related to a particular svn snapshot of source code without modification, because the code has obviously been modified and there is no way to know what the modified code looks like.

Linux has various including GNU General Public License, BSD License, Apache License, MIT License, and other licenses
Apache has an Apache license
MySQL has GNU General Public License (version 2, with linking exception) or proprietary EULA
PHP has a PHP license

Asterisk has GNU General Public License
Avidemux has GNU General Public License
Blender has GNU General Public License v2 or later
Cinelerra has GNU General Public License
ffmpeg has GNU LGPL 2.1+, GNU GPL 2+
Gimp has GNU General Public License
GNU Compiler Collection has GNU General Public License (version 3 or later)
LiVES has GNU General Public License version 3 or higher.
MPlayer has GNU General Public License
OpenOffice has GNU Lesser General Public License v3
OpenVPN has GNU GPL
OpenX has GNU General Public License
VirtualDub has GNU General Public License
VLC has GNU General Public License v2 or later
xine has GNU GPL

There are very few open source applications that I've noticed that have MIT license.  Perhaps in deciding upon MIT license or another license a kind of role model should be considered and to perhaps discuss with other communities about their perspective on licensing.

http://www.cio.com/article/32146/Open_Source_The_Myths_of_Open_Source

Proprietary versions of Bitcoin client will profit AND escalate all support to be handled by the open source, willing-to-help community at no cost to proprietary designer.

Theoretically yes.  Practically?  No.

Given all the variables -- compiler, compiler platform, compiler version, compiler options, linked library versions of all our dependent libraries -- this is quite difficult.

It depends on the source.


It depends on the source.


Question invalid due to previous answers.


Anyone who says "why would you be against GPL? it makes no sense" is a zealot.  Each licensing option has its own time and place.

A closed source client is a bad idea.

But this is why users should prefer an open source client. It's not the software developer's job to decide this for the end user.

I believe that users themselves may decide which client is better to use.
If a proprietary client steals money, there is no fault of the community...

You mean like whether you can *trust* it? THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT and it's spelled out in my previous post! Based on what are you going to trust the source? Whether it is large enough? Microsoft sure can be trusted ... or how nice of a logo they have? Maybe your friend is CEO? Is he expected to be personal friend with everyone who uses the software? How does it depend on the source? Please... share this ultimate wisdom with me.


No, anyone who posts several messages without giving ANY reason why MIT would be preferred to GPL is an irrational person. You can not give a reason because there is no reason. The only thing left except admitting that, is calling people names, there is no rational reason against using GPL ... if there was, you would stated it already. But you must be an Internet hero and argue your case to the death no matter how wrong you are. That kind of mentality just makes me mad, as you may have noticed ;) and you call me a zealot, lol

Whooh there!!... I'm not trying to be against you. Just trying to have a normal discussion, nothing personal. It is normal that people might have different opinions about something. As for my reasons in this discussion, see below.



Ok, to be clear about my point. I've been using FOSS for over 15 years now and I don't care if it is GPL or MIT. They are both open source and free. That is the pro against closed source licenses for me. If a developer chooses one or the other, it is his choice, I can't force him to use an other license if I haven't written any code myself. If I don't agree with this, I write my own code and place it under my license of choice, or I shut up. I would love to see the/a client under a GPL license and I think I would prefer to use that one over the MIT one, but there is currently no GPL one, so I have to do with the MIT one and that is fine with me (as long as I have the basic rights that define it as FOSS).

Now, back to the GPL vs MIT discussion. Both licenses were once made to give the user the freedom to use the software how he/she wants to use it. But the licenses have a different view about the freedom. GPL restricts the user in taking these freedoms away (copyleft), making it in BSD eyes less free. BSD/MIT on the other hand give the freedom to take freedoms away from the user. Two different point of views causing a dilemma about which one is more free. But, IMHO both are valid to use. Personally I don't mind the copyleft restriction of the GPL, but you also have to respect other peoples opinion that this "hypocritical" restriction should not be needed in the first place.

I have enough thrust in FOSS that the open source MIT client will keep its leading edge over future closed source ones as long as it keeps actively developed and keeps support of its community.

Note who gets and loses freedom in each case. The GPL restricts the freedom of the developer and maintains the freedom of the user to modify the system. BSD/MIT gives the developer the freedom to restrict the freedom of the user to do such modifications. Which license you like can depend on who you are.

Of course most of us are really both here. It is really interesting to note how the gcc (GNU compiler) remains under the GPL, where the programmers are the users, and is even used on many BSD operating systems. (Yes I know there are efforts to change that.)

Macho, the GPL license doesn't stop anyone from making a closed source client. It just requires them to write it from scratch (or be dishonest and use Bitcoin code).

Whom I or anyone else chooses to trust or not trust, is not for you to decide.


Look here, I can give you my reasons for trusting anyone in particular, should I choose to do so. But I don't get to demand other people's reasons, and neither do you.

Even if we think it is always best to use an open source client, there are still circumstances when the MIT license would be a valid choice.

One of the characteristics of the MIT license is that it is compatible with most other licenses. That way, you can write a new client which combines the MIT-licensed code with code that is under some other kind of license.

Perhaps this will enable someone to write an open source client that combines parts of the existing implementation with existing GUI libraries, database frameworks, logging utilities, etc etc.

The flexibility of the MIT license is a big help if you want to encourage the adoption of niche software.

That is a good point that should be reiterated for these types of discussions.

Now, this may be a little extreme example, but it demonstrates the issue quite well I think:

It "restricts the freedom" of the developers in similar way that laws against rape "restrict the freedom" of rapists to rape. It makes no sense to use or encourage closed-source client any more than asking for rape. Using closed-source client is like walking trough dark isolated street alone in the middle of the night ... you are asking for it. And you are going to get it sooner or later.

Now those screaming "I can trust whoever I want, that's none of your business", sure ... that's like I would tell somebody not to go that dark street because it is known for its crime and these people would start screaming that I'm not going to tell them what to do and they're going to go trough that street anyway. It's childish knee-jerk reaction, they do not really disagree that it is dangerous, they do not disagree that they're going to get raped ... they just want to go there because somebody suggested they shouldn't. It's like when you want a kid to open a box, simply tell them not to, they're guaranteed to open it. Reverse psychology. Really incredible that adults are so susceptible to that, or maybe I'm talking to teenagers?


I've already responded to that, does that mean we should make it easy for them? We are going in circles ... that's not an argument for using MIT, that's just an excuse for one of its pitfalls (which GPL doesn't have).


That is a disadvantage, not advantage. We DO NOT want anybody to combine it with any kind of any different license, that would compromise its freedom and therefore security, put many people at risk and endanger the whole bitcoin project. Now, I wouldn't call that a good thing, would you?

What gets me so frustrated here is that people really do not think things through, they just react with a knee-jerk reactions most of the time. I'm not mad at you who write those responses really, I'm mad at those stupid posts :) So I apologize if I've came off too harsh. Then people just feel like opposing me because I'm "rude" and do not rationally think about the issues, they change into reactionary creatures fighting for their tribe ... it's unfortunate people react like that. There has been not one rational reason for using MIT license over GPL and people still feel like arguing for MIT and I'm unable to understand why except for some psychological issues causing this. Satochi did not answer the questions too, maybe he realized that MIT license makes no sense but instead of admitting that and simply changing it he is ignoring this thread and acting like it wouldn't exist. Sad that people are prone to decide on what they'd like to be true instead of what is actually true ...

Do you believe there are any matters that should be left to people's own discretion, without deferring to your wisdom?

This is another example of a knee-jerk reaction you see. And exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. You do not really disagree with any of the arguments, you just want to have a stab at me because you feel like you're being told what to do or think. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying isn't the right course of action or that you would disagree that it is, it's just your ego provoking an irrational response without any real basis. Let me give an another example demonstrating what's happening here:

A guy stands in front of a window preparing to jump, someone comes along and tries to persuade him not to because he is going to hurt himself. Some other guy notices this and interprets it as someone telling others what to do and rushes to the window guy 'defense', attacking the one who is trying to persuade him not to jump: "Why are you telling others what to do?", maybe starts mocking him: "Do you believe there are any matters that should be left to people's own discretion, without deferring to your wisdom?". You see, his only focus is the fact that someone is giving arguments to another in order to persuade him that his course of action is unwise (which he interprets as 'telling others what to do') and does not pay attention to whether said arguments are in fact valid or not and the guy preparing to jump could really hurt himself - he doesn't care about that. Others may join in and attack the guy further: "You do not know how deep it is under the window, maybe he won't hurt himself" (aka "You can not be sure we can not trust closed-source, maybe they won't rip us off"), "There is no reason to discourage him from jumping, he can just jump tomorrow anyway", "We shouldn't put banister on balcony, people can jump anyway"  (aka "People can just make the software from scratch anyway").

All these arguments are so transparently irrational to me that I can not imagine anyone not seeing that. The above situation is what I see when I read the thread. I'm saying that bitcoin is going to 'jump out of the window' and hurt itself if we encourage closed-source implementations and people are attacking me for 'telling them what to do' instead of looking at whether the arguments I present are actually valid. They do not disagree that bitcoin can be hurt by closed-source, they just do not like being told so by me or something. It's really incomprehensible to me why people react like this, it's probably our twisted culture. If we wouldn't be so reactionary, we wouldn't be so easily controlled and manipulated. You can almost literally cause people to jump from the window by telling them that the person telling them not to is 'telling them what to do' and therefore they should do exact opposite ... and people apparently consider that a valid reason, it's upside down.

But I'm sure folks are going to jump all over me again for 'telling them what to do', 'talking down to them', 'being condescending' or whatever emotional ego reaction they're going to have rather than consider whether what I'm saying is true or not. They're going to 'defend' the right of the guy to jump from the window rather than joining me in persuading him not to because it's foolish. Yeah well, if there is not some personal growth encouraged in the bitcoin community, it is going to be subverted, hijacked and neutralized extremely easily ... closed-source software is one of the options to do exactly that and you're even inviting people to do it instead guarding against it, incredible!

Do you have the impression that one or more individuals within our community that may indicate, suggest or to have admitted to use a proprietary closed source Bitcoin-related application is indicative that "we encourage closed-source implementations?"  Who is "we?"  Is "we" a kind of central authoritative figure?  I think there will be individuals that pursue their own decisions, choices that may conflict with others, however, it should not be considered that if one or more individuals share the same or similar decision or choice, even if such decision or choice is majority, that "we" as a community are representative of that choice.

I think there may be confusion being generated about this topic.  Perhaps a poll can help to provide a better understanding as to how others feel about using proprietary clients.  However, again..


That is a good point that should be reiterated for these types of discussions.

For example, if Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, etc. were to show acceptance of Bitcoin but release a proprietary version that is integrated within their product (e.g. proprietary implementation integrated into ps3/ps4, just like all the other proprietariness within), there is no point in arguing against Sony's actions.  Arguing about it is pointless.  In the case of Sony designing their own proprietary implementation integrated into their hardware, there most likely will also be an initiative to hack the system and to provide an open source implementation anyway, and for those that are geek enough, they will probably use the open source version instead.  For those that just want things to work (majority, mostly computer-illiterate and prefer to consume time pursuing other activities anyway), then they will use proprietary version.

In the case of Bitcoin, the open source version is currently the dominant version.  It is the most recognized or the first noticed.  As far as I can tell, proprietary versions of Bitcoin haven't been advertised to the masses more so than the official open source Bitcoin client, so although there is discussion about the particular version, it isn't taking over or becoming more popular than open source version.

It is probably most productive and best for the community overall for those advocating open source and against proprietary to learn how to program (if not already familiar), rather than arguing for it whilst expecting everyone else to develop/program open source alternative.  While it can be argued that one is not a developer or doesn't have necessary skill, perhaps that is just a sign of laziness or unwillingness to stand up for one's beliefs.  It would be more reputable, admirable if one were to pursue their argument by contributing towards development to support their argument.

On a side note, Macho, is that you in my profile picture?  *chuckle*

Closed source implementations can exist no matter what license you use (they can just reimplement).

I'm joining the voice of those insisting that a GPL license would be better for the "official" bitcoin client.

Actions tell al lot more than words.
Distributing the source-code with a permissive license translate to a people's mind that it is an optional but valid alternatived to distribute and accept a closed-source bitcoin-client.

Then one day, someone decides to ship, under well-worked pseydonym, an android-client with a "sleeping" feature that steals any payment containing more than i.e 1000 bcs, or all payments happening on April 1st.
And the malevolent developer can rest assured that nobody could have prevent it, since nobody can compare the binary to the source code.

An application that supports the very-existence of "money" is not the same as any other application we have ever come acrosss.
The rules don't apply the same.
I don't see why is it coercive or bad attitude to insist on adopting a more freedom-enforcing lisence for technical reasons?

Please, Satoshi, i urge you to rethink, and stop contributing to the MIT-licensed client and continue working on a GPL-version.

Satoshi is busy.  Doing what, I have no idea-- maybe he's working on a GPL-version of bitcoin, but I doubt it.

In any case, I wouldn't expect any opinion on GPL versus MIT from him.

My opinion:  I've got better things to do than worry about which open source license is most appropriate.  No software license has magical powers that will prevent 'bad guys' from trying to do bad things.

MIT is compatible with the widest range of other open source licenses, so it will help the uptake of bitcoin. Satoshi made his decision a long time ago, and there are surely more important things to be worrying about.

The MIT license is compatible with the GPL, so you are free to create and develop a GPL fork if you feel strongly enough about it.

Deciding whether to run untrusted code is your responsibility, the mere fact a project is open source doesn't mean someone can compile and distribute a rogue binary to people who won't bother to compile themselves.

Is your online banking interface under AGPL ?
No. Doesn't mean it can deal with money, you use it because you trust it to work as advertised.

Nothing wrong with having a different opinion, however there's no technical reason why the source should be under GPL rather than MIT.
It doesn't really make a difference. What matters is the protocol, not the mainstream client.

Enforcing freedom is rather like fucking for virginity.

The MIT license is basically a grant of use for any purpose, plus a disclaimer of liability and the (coercively enforceable) requirement to include the original author's copyright notice and the license itself on derived works. That is, if you as a software developer take MIT-licensed software and distribute a derived version or copy of it without adhering to the license terms, the legal system permits the author to bring a lawsuit. That, in turn, means things like courts, judges, police, fines, imprisonment for "contempt" and the well-oiled .45 that lies underneath every pile of government paperwork.

Doesn't sound like freedom to me, if you as a software developer can be subjected to all that, just because the original author objects to how you've twiddled some bits.

And the Gnu licenses are worse, since they add more restrictions.

All in all, the MIT license is fine. But if you want more of that freedom stuff, you ought to be arguing the opposite: put the Bitcoin code fully into the public domain, like the world's very first web server, CERN httpd was. Or like the stuff listed here: http://unlicense.org/

1 BTC donation sent XD

EDIT :

david@bankbox:~$ bitcoin validateaddress 1F417eczAAbh41V4oLGNf3DqXLY72hsM7
{
    "isvalid" : false
}

Free software licences force publishers to give freedom to their customers. It is not about freedom for the publisher, it is about freedom for the users. Of course, a user can become a publisher, but the licence is about the user's rights. There is, therefore, no paradox.

I don't know if you have problems with restricting the freedom of restricting freedom. Has Alice the freedom to put Bob in prison, or should we restrict Alice's freedom in order to protect Bob's ?

Interesting -- the checksum for that address is wrong. Maybe a bug in Bitcoin? The actual address seems to be:
1F417eczAAbh41V4oLGNf3DqXLYBmgs6s

It's not about "freedom", but property rights. Any enforcement of copyright allows you to control my use of my real property. In your example, Alice would be infringing on Bob's ownership of his own body, which would not be OK.

I'm not sending funds to an address with a wrong checksum :)

I happen to like the GPL. It's a big, beautiful fuck-you to the entire copyright system. That said, I see nothing wrong with the MIT license for the "official" Bitcoin client. Anyone who wants a GPL Bitcoin client badly enough can just take the source code for 0.3.19, make some changes, give his version a different name, and release it under the GPL. No more butthurt.

I don't know where you got the idea that enforcing people to release source code they wrote is more freedom. It has nothing to do with copyrights, I might have nothing against copying my source code once it's public, but it doesn't mean I must make it public in the first place. It doesn't restrict any freedoms.

MIT/BSD = Freedom
GPL = Communism

Scams are also possible with GPL, not many people can read or understand source code. And it's possible to write closed source client from scratch and besides, there are easier ways to cheat than writing your own client.

Licensing and copyright are orthogonal.
+1 for the rest

Only to the same extent of copyright.

Not so with copyleft. The whole idea, or at least a big part of it, is to exploit overly extensive copyright protections in order to give those who infringe on the rights of end users a taste of their own medicine.

...Unless I misunderstood you.

GPL-advocates believe that simply by releasing with this license you'd prevent proprietary-software-scams??
Seriously? Do you really think that somebody willing to steal people's money will even bother to know what's the software license?

SMF bug. The "number of characters left" display on the signature input box appears to be wrong. Someone else had pointed out to me that my address there was invalid, and thought I corrected it by adding a "3" to the end:

1F417eczAAbh41V4oLGNf3DqXLY72hsM73

Should be working now, since I shorted the text in other places.

By releasing under a copyleft licence, you don't prevent abuses, but you make sure that they're illegal.

Promised BTC sent

Ďakujem!

Nothing of the sort, since one can legally implement an abusive client from scratch.

If anything, GPL slows adoption compared to less restrictive licenses, such as MIT, BSD, or no license/copyright (Public Domain).  People naturally try to make the best (in their own eyes) use of their resources, generally trying to increase their wealth (subjective).  A business that wants to release their own client loses much of their competitive edge if they have to release the source code (and therefore their improvements) to their competitors.  So why would they put the resources into something that won't give them a competitive edge when they have other, more profitable things they can do with their resources?  However, an MIT license allows them to make changes and not release the source to their competitors, which may actually give them an edge over their competition, potentially leading to higher profits.  If you don't have businesses promoting Bitcoin with their software releases, Bitcoin-related services, marketing budgets, etc., what chance does Bitcoin have to become mainstream?  What use is Bitcoin to the mainstream if mainstream businesses don't use it?  Most real life transactions are either consumers to business, or business to business.  Why make Bitcoin less likely to become mainstream by using the GPL license?

My Bitcoin implementation will certainly not be GPL, and will be released in the Public Domain (assuming I don't unwittingly run into problems with any potential future co-developers demanding a license, asserting fallacious claims of control over the real property of myself and others), as I don't believe in initiating (or threatening the initiation of) violence to increase wealth (everything every human does is in attempt to increase their personal wealth in their own eyes), which means I don't believe in government or copyright, as the foundation of government is based on the (threat of) initiation of violence, and all of your open-source licenses are based on copyright laws that require the government.  Until someone accomplishes the impossible and provides a proof that people should initiate violence to get what they want, any beliefs in support of government, copyright, and licenses based on copyright are unfounded, and are nothing more than religion and an attempt to force their religion onto others.

I can do this too:

Bicycles = Freedom
Cars = Communism

Freestyle = Freedom
Backstroke = Communism

Brunettes = Freedom
Blondes = Communism

Want to join the Fun!

BIND is ISC
Compiz is MIT
Enlightenment is BSD
Fluxbox is MIT
GHC and Hugs BSD
Haiku is MIT
lighttpd is BSD
LLVM and clang are BSD
Lua is MIT
ncurses is BSD
nginx is BSD
OpenSSH is BSD
PuTTY is MIT
Tcl is BSD
thttpd is BSD
Tor is BSD
vi is BSD
Webkit is BSD
X11 and most related projects are MIT
Most implementations of Smalltalk are BSD or MIT
Most implementations of JavaScript, as well as jquery and YUI are BSD or MIT
Bittorrent became successful, because they were MIT, libtorrent (base for a big number of clients) is BSD