Network protocol overview doc

[NewLibertyStandard]

I show respect to whomever I don't disrespect. Anyway, it was just a silly post. I am quite certain I haven't traumatized his tender sensitive soul. If he were not able to take it, then like most people, he would have adapted his outward personality long ago in such a way so as to reduce his susceptibility to receiving such feedback. The fact that he has grown to adulthood without adapting his outward personality, demonstrates that he is at very least, reasonably comfortable receiving pissy feedback from people on the Internet and very likely AFK as well. I kindly thank all of you who continuously show dignity, respect and civility to whomever (jgarzik and/or me) you feel does not deserve it.

[RHorning]

Let's not overreact: this is a single page of documentation we're talking about. I could reproduce it in a few hours, but I really don't want to if it is eventually going to get released under a permissive license. Let's not alienate one of our best community programmers over a single page of documentation.

Please guys, let's not make this a huge deal. Jgarzik, you could defuse this whole situation by releasing your document under a license that's friendly to copying and cooperation. NLS, please don't be a dick about all of this. Again guys, we're trying to build a community, not a conformity. If Jgarzik doesn't want to allow copying of his document, that's 100% his right. At least he has agreed to release all of his code, patches, etc etc with a MIT license, which is the really important part.

Jgarzik, NLS, etc: I have great respect for all of you and your contributions to Bitcoin. Please, let's not make this a us vs him thing.

I agree that diffusing this situation is the best solution here, and I really don't understand the intransigence on this one issue other than to make a statement of some kind.  Yes, he has the technical "right" to insist upon copyright control here.

I have worked with too many proprietary protocol documents that I have vowed to never be tied down to another one again unless the pay is excellent and explicitly required by contract that I've agreed to ahead of time.  This is a situation that simply can't stand over time.

I would like to simply be in a position to ignore this "document" provided by Jgarzik completely, but any future documentation written by any other member of the community that may be challenged as potentially a derivative of his document as he is the first person to put this information down in this fashion.  In some ways, I'm tempted to simply say "damn the torpedoes" and copy the information in this document anyway.... challenging him to sue me for copyright infringement.  It would be a precedent setting case in the very least on a whole bunch of levels and I have no certain idea how a court would end up ruling on the issue although I'm pretty confident that I would get the support of the greater Bitcoin community for standing up to this kind of behavior.

It doesn't have to be this way, and in a way it has become a legal threat to the community as a whole.  I don't want to have to document every piece of information I have discovered or go into a "clean room" situation for writing protocol documentation.  Simply cooperating with the community is to me a better thing to do as I don't see the benefit for insisting upon a proprietary copyright.

[mizerydearia]

I think it is not so useful to produce any types of communication indicative of trying to change how things seem to be.  Instead, perhaps focusing on simply progressing on related developments in a way that doesn't interfere with this issue.  It will be more productive to put forth efforts into accomplishing that rather than communicating otherwise.  However, if like me, you feel you are not a kind of individual who is skilled or informed enough to start production of such documentation, then it makes more sense why you may decide to post or communication in such a manner.  However, it is unnecessary nonetheless.  Someone, eventually, will realize or determine they are a kind of person skilled enough to produce an alternative type of documentation and we can eventually collaboratively work on establishing it to be useful as I had intended from the beginning.  Arguing is just waste of time, energies, etc. regardless of how well spent such time makes you, personally, feel.

Anyone interested to offer a basis for a new type of documentation that we can collaboratively use?

[lachesis]

I would like to simply be in a position to ignore this "document" provided by Jgarzik completely, but any future documentation written by any other member of the community that may be challenged as potentially a derivative of his document as he is the first person to put this information down in this fashion. 

I challenge that assumption. I started documenting things like the version message before he released that. His documentation is broader than mine, but mine is more in depth. If you believe that the earliest description of the protocol in plain English somehow magically controls it, then we're safe since I came before him, and Satoshi probably has docs from 0.1.0 or before.

In some ways, I'm tempted to simply say "damn the torpedoes" and copy the information in this document anyway.... challenging him to sue me for copyright infringement.  It would be a precedent setting case in the very least on a whole bunch of levels and I have no certain idea how a court would end up ruling on the issue although I'm pretty confident that I would get the support of the greater Bitcoin community for standing up to this kind of behavior.

Honestly, I don't think Jgarzik's going to go to a court of law over a single page of docs, and even if he did, what would he accomplish? He couldn't stop Bitcoin nor could he co-opt the documentation. There are enough anarchist-type people in the Bitcoin community to be frightened of someone controlling the protocol or documentation or whatever by releasing an HTML table with a rough summary of messages as a copyright landmine of sorts. Let's not press this issue and drive away one of the few community members who is actually contributing code instead of just talking about it.

[RHorning]

However, if like me, you feel you are not a kind of individual who is skilled or informed enough to start production of such documentation, then it makes more sense why you may decide to post or communication in such a manner.  However, it is unnecessary nonetheless.  Someone, eventually, will realize or determine they are a kind of person skilled enough to produce an alternative type of documentation and we can eventually collaboratively work on establishing it to be useful as I had intended from the beginning.  Arguing is just waste of time, energies, etc. regardless of how well spent such time makes you, personally, feel.

Anyone interested to offer a basis for a new type of documentation that we can collaboratively use?

It isn't a lack of skill.  Heck, I started a documentation effort with the protocol prior to this thread (already on the wiki).  That is part of what is on my nerve at the moment, as I am seeking to document this protocol for my own efforts, and I would love to work collaboratively with others who are earnest in filling in the details.

I just want to know how far he is willing to go here in defending this supposed copyright.

I'll use a different format and it will clearly be a different document, but I'm certainly going to be using this same information as it comes from the same source.  This effort currently is at:

http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bitcoins_draft_spec_0_0_1

If you want to help me in writing this document, I'd love to have your cooperation on it.  It is a wiki, and it is also available under a Creative Commons license.  I'm just trying to decide what else to put into there and what constitutes "copying" in terms of adding factual information.  It isn't lack of skill, it is a worry that somehow this document by jgarzik is going to blow out of the water this current effort of mine on a legal basis by his insistence upon a license (or lack thereof) other than the Creative Commons license on the wiki.  Content on the wiki does not require "permission" to copy.