Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:45:14 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Solidcoin DMCA takedown  (Read 9258 times)
joulesbeef
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


moOo


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 03:05:17 PM
 #41

I say make the most useful product you can and dont worry about this BS.

mooo for rent
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480927514
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480927514

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480927514
Reply with quote  #2

1480927514
Report to moderator
1480927514
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480927514

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480927514
Reply with quote  #2

1480927514
Report to moderator
1480927514
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480927514

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480927514
Reply with quote  #2

1480927514
Report to moderator
Nesetalis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 03:11:57 PM
 #42

simple: put the licensing back in and stop fretting about shit :p

ZOMG Moo!
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 03:25:49 PM
 #43

Hello everyone,

as you might know, I'm writing a new pool software. Being pretty much unaware of any history and consequences, I've also incorporated SolidCoin support by using parts of CoinHunter/RealSolid's code.

As I'm now seeing this DMCA going on, I'm worried about my project (it is licensed under the GPLv3). Should I remove SolidCoin support and related code in order to comply with the laws?

A takedown notice is simply that.  A notice to takedown the code.  Worse case scenario (and it is incredibly unlikely) that is all you realistically face.  ScamCoin had months to restore the proper license & copyright before the takedown. 

If you restore the proper MIT license & copyright notice then it is unlikely you will even face a takedown.

One thing I would caution is that King RealScam's 'license' essentially gives him unlimited power to revoke it at any time and for any reason he sees fit.  I would design your code to be modular so you can drop the ScamCoin portion easily should that happen.   Would hate to see entire project crippled at the whims of the mad king.

I would also caution that it is unlikely that ScamCoins proprietary license meets the requires for Berkeley DB license.  I doubt a pool server would need to make use of Berkeley DB but you if you do you should consider that complication in licensing.  You could be compliant w/ Bitcoin MIT license, King RealScam's crazy-man license and still non-compliant w/ Oracle.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 03:52:38 PM
 #44

just remember for the time being all RS requests in his license is to ask perms and that you won't be attempting to attack SLC with your project.
This requirement is non-free and cannot be used with free software.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 03:55:17 PM
 #45

just remember for the time being all RS requests in his license is to ask perms and that you won't be attempting to attack SLC with your project.
This requirement is non-free and cannot be used with free software.

Well it can be used w/ MIT license as MIT has no copyleft provision.  It is most definitely incompatible w/ Oracle's license though.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 03:58:39 PM
 #46

just remember for the time being all RS requests in his license is to ask perms and that you won't be attempting to attack SLC with your project.
This requirement is non-free and cannot be used with free software.

Well it can be used w/ MIT license as MIT has no copyleft provision.  It is most definitely incompatible w/ Oracle's license though.
Mixed with MIT, would still make the final program non-free.

k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:01:35 PM
 #47

Hello everyone,

as you might know, I'm writing a new pool software. Being pretty much unaware of any history and consequences, I've also incorporated SolidCoin support by using parts of CoinHunter/RealSolid's code.

As I'm now seeing this DMCA going on, I'm worried about my project (it is licensed under the GPLv3). Should I remove SolidCoin support and related code in order to comply with the laws?

Please state your answer as neutral as possible. I know everyone hates RS and SC is wrong and whatnot, but I don't care so much for that personal opinions. I'm offering a neutral software; you can decide yourself if, for which chain, and for what reason you want to use it.

p2k

EDIT: The parts that got incorporated only involve the hashing algorithms, that is a sha256 implementation, blake512 and a modified version of rshash (it's modified so the ridiculous texts/insults can't be seen).

The best & easiest solution:
You can't GPL Solidcoin code (the GPL won't stick in court). Realsolid's license.txt claims the rights to it. So you shouldn't put any of his code in a file with your code.
Put the Solidcoin code in it's own library with it's own license file. Do not static link it into your binary.


Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:03:57 PM
 #48

just remember for the time being all RS requests in his license is to ask perms and that you won't be attempting to attack SLC with your project.
This requirement is non-free and cannot be used with free software.

Well it can be used w/ MIT license as MIT has no copyleft provision.  It is most definitely incompatible w/ Oracle's license though.
Mixed with MIT, would still make the final program non-free.

True.  I misunderstood what you were saying.
p2k
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


Advancing ➤


View Profile WWW
January 11, 2012, 04:17:29 PM
 #49

This is the library I use for ecoinpool. It incorporates several C files by different authors and with different licenses:
https://github.com/p2k/ecoinpool/tree/master/apps/ecoinpool/c_src

I've just removed the unknown SHA256 implementation that came along with rs_hash.c and rewrote code so the one shipped with scrypt (properly licensed) is used.

The original rs_hash.c file came from "reaper", a SC miner software by mtrlt licensed under the GPLv3, but was heavily modified by me, only keeping the core algorithm as-is. I'm really not sure how to do that properly now. There is no rs_hash library for use with Erlang (the language ecoinpool is programmed in) so I would have to make one myself anyways...

ecoinpool: AnnouncementHomepageGitHub
Support me: 1p2k1Fo7WzcuuLfFFfszCMhcjfxqevEqo
p2k
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


Advancing ➤


View Profile WWW
January 11, 2012, 04:27:34 PM
 #50

You're even more fine then, the license garbage in no way effects you, but I don't know about the unknown "SHA256" to scrypt thing... I guess so long as they are compatible and do the same thing you'd be fine

That's why there are unit tests Wink

It's all working as before, but I'm feeling better.

ecoinpool: AnnouncementHomepageGitHub
Support me: 1p2k1Fo7WzcuuLfFFfszCMhcjfxqevEqo
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:30:59 PM
 #51

You're even more fine then, the license garbage in no way effects you, but I don't know about the unknown "SHA256" to scrypt thing... I guess so long as they are compatible and do the same thing you'd be fine

It is very telling how much you have sold out to call the fundamental distinction between free software and proprietary restrictive license (far more than even a license by Microsoft) is just "license garbage".

Free software = users have rights to the code and can use it as they see fit.
Restrictive License = users have no rights and use the code only at the wishes of the Scammer In Chief.

The sheer irony is that without free software the abomination called ScamCoin wouldn't even exist, however that is the price of freedom.
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:45:31 PM
 #52

You're even more fine then, the license garbage in no way effects you, but I don't know about the unknown "SHA256" to scrypt thing... I guess so long as they are compatible and do the same thing you'd be fine

That's why there are unit tests Wink

It's all working as before, but I'm feeling better.

I would not trust advice from viperjm regarding software development. He hasn't done any, nor has he demonstrated on these boards any understanding of it.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:46:46 PM
 #53

sorry for OT but did this ---v  really happen? I only heard about the 'random' text in block headers.

Speaking about law, how "lawful" is using the hashing power of your pool to perform an attack? Without informing the users mining there?
It's slander, nothing more.
First time i see a generic question becoming DEFAMATION

It must be a miracle of a god...
p2k
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


Advancing ➤


View Profile WWW
January 11, 2012, 04:55:49 PM
 #54

I would not trust advice from viperjm regarding software development. He hasn't done any, nor has he demonstrated on these boards any understanding of it.

Could you set your personal differences aside and just tell me what you think I should do in my current situation?

Do I have to throw away my modified rs_hash, get a fresh copy of it with the license.txt and build a new library from it? Or is building a library violating the license again? Is there any chance I can use the algorithm in my project?

ecoinpool: AnnouncementHomepageGitHub
Support me: 1p2k1Fo7WzcuuLfFFfszCMhcjfxqevEqo
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:59:34 PM
 #55

I would not trust advice from viperjm regarding software development. He hasn't done any, nor has he demonstrated on these boards any understanding of it.

Could you set your personal differences aside and just tell me what you think I should do in my current situation?

Do I have to throw away my modified rs_hash, get a fresh copy of it with the license.txt and build a new library from it? Or is building a library violating the license again? Is there any chance I can use the algorithm in my project?

I gave my advice earlier in the thread. But to save you a scroll...

Don't mingle anything from Realsolid with anything else. Mixing licenses in this case would be bad as the terms are incompatible.
Make sure any code from SC is in a separate binary. Don't static link it in.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
p2k
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


Advancing ➤


View Profile WWW
January 11, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
 #56

Could you set your personal differences aside and just tell me what you think I should do in my current situation?

Do I have to throw away my modified rs_hash, get a fresh copy of it with the license.txt and build a new library from it? Or is building a library violating the license again? Is there any chance I can use the algorithm in my project?

I gave my advice earlier in the thread. But to save you a scroll...

I've read your advice, that's why I said "build a new library from it". I'm asking for details: if it's ok to use my own variant of rs_hash and if building any library (I have to insert some glue code for using it in Erlang) is allowed at all.

EDIT: Tell you what, I just throw it out of the master branch and if anyone needs it badly he could ask me or pull the last SC supporting version out of the GIT tree. This is too hot for me, I don't want to lose my software because of this "license garbage" or what ever the politically correct expression for this is.

ecoinpool: AnnouncementHomepageGitHub
Support me: 1p2k1Fo7WzcuuLfFFfszCMhcjfxqevEqo
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
 #57

Could you set your personal differences aside and just tell me what you think I should do in my current situation?

Do I have to throw away my modified rs_hash, get a fresh copy of it with the license.txt and build a new library from it? Or is building a library violating the license again? Is there any chance I can use the algorithm in my project?

I gave my advice earlier in the thread. But to save you a scroll...

I've read your advice, that's why I said "build a new library from it". I'm asking for details: if it's ok to use my own variant of rs_hash and if building any library (I have to insert some glue code for using it in Erlang) is allowed at all.

EDIT: Tell you what, I just throw it out of the master branch and if anyone needs it badly he could ask me or pull the last SC supporting version out of the GIT tree. This is too hot for me, I don't want to lose my software because of this "license garbage" or what ever the politically correct expression for this is.

Sorry for being vague, but it is really hard to give definitive answers in this realm. Even lawyers can only give advice, they cannot absolve you of an licensing difficulties. Ultimately, the only opinion that matters is that of the last judge who rules on the lawsuit. The strange and bizarre can enter into such a case, such as: if you even read the solidcoin code, etc.

It is a bit like quicksand. Sad

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
p2k
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


Advancing ➤


View Profile WWW
January 12, 2012, 01:53:13 AM
 #58

Yeah, I lust left the desert. I'm declaring it to someone else's problem. Have fun!

ecoinpool: AnnouncementHomepageGitHub
Support me: 1p2k1Fo7WzcuuLfFFfszCMhcjfxqevEqo
onelineproof
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 50


View Profile WWW
January 13, 2012, 06:12:41 AM
 #59

I think Solidcoin is a joke...BUT please bitcoin developers, do not file DMCA Takedowns. We are supposed to be encouraging internet freedom, not the policing of the internet. Does it really matter if they claim that your code is their code? Anyone can verify the claim for themselves.

Pirate Linux developer: https://piratelinux.org
Cwallet developer: https://github.com/piratelinux/cwallet
Donate: 1proofgtqF9JJ26ZCYatkvWfpJE8bDYxa
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 13, 2012, 06:27:33 AM
 #60

I think Solidcoin is a joke...BUT please bitcoin developers, do not file DMCA Takedowns. We are supposed to be encouraging internet freedom, not the policing of the internet. Does it really matter if they claim that your code is their code? Anyone can verify the claim for themselves.

It is called theft.  If Microsoft stole the Bitcoin code, made it proprietary and then tried to commercialize it would you also say to not respond w/ legal action.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!