Switch to GPL

[dkaparis]

It depends on the source.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[1713454381]

1713454381

[1713454381]

1713454381

[1713454381]

1713454381

[1713454381]

1713454381

[ribuck]

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.

[mizerydearia]

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.

[Macho]

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.

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?

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).

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).

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.

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 ...

[dkaparis]

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?

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

[Macho]

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!

[mizerydearia]

I'm saying that bitcoin is going to 'jump out of the window' and hurt itself if we encourage closed-source implementations

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..

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 t 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.

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*

[singpolyma]

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

[ankostis]

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.

[Gavin Andresen]

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.

[ribuck]

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.

[davout]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't see why is it coercive or bad attitude to insist on adopting a more freedom-enforcing lisence for technical reasons?

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.

[mikegogulski]

I don't see why is it coercive or bad attitude to insist on adopting a more freedom-enforcing lisence for technical reasons?

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/

[davout]

Enforcing freedom is rather like fucking for virginity.

1 BTC donation sent XD

EDIT :

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

[ElectricGoat]

Enforcing freedom is rather like fucking for virginity.

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 ?

[theymos]

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

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

[theymos]

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 ?

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.

[davout]

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

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

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

[FatherMcGruder]

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.

[bittersweet]

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 ?

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.