Topic: -- Miner's Official Coin LAUNCH - NUGGETS (NUGS) -- - page 77. (Read 121524 times)

Lol

Let's get back on topic here, shall we?

github readme changed again:


"innovative"   hahahaha

I read it perfectly.  Sure future derived version of the Bitcoin software could be released under a more restrictive license (only because MIT lacks a "copyleft" provision).  That doesn't make existing copies "go away" and it doesn't require anyone to use the new version. It is a non-issue.  

DeathAndTaxes

It seems that you haven't read message properly. You are correct with that, but it's correct for existent copies only. If you have a copy, you have all rights and can redistribute this rights as well. But future version could be published under non-MIT proprietary license if all authors will accept this. This is the reason why companies like Oracle requires all copyrights removal when accepting patches to mysql or another projects.
 

All changes could be enforced only for the hipothetical future versions by Satoshi. But Satoshi can't force anyone to use his version only. So, the old-licensed fork will be started.

No Balthazar is playing academic semantic games.

The code was released under MIT license.  Satoshi has no control over either the original copies (unmodified copies of the code he released), or derived copies (improvements to Bitcoin protocol, altcoins, etc).  None.

Just to try and confuse the point Balthazar is saying that IF Satoshi could convince every single person who has a modified copy of the source code to delete it (not just Gavin, or every developer, but every single human on the planet who has a copy), and not just every original copy but every derivative copy as well (all the improvements to Bitcoin, all the alt-coins, etc) then he could modify his copy (the only remaining copy) and release it under a different license.

Essentially an asinine scenario which was pointless to even bring up other than to confuse the fact.  It would be like saying if I found every single copy of Shakespeare's works and destroyed them.  Literally every single copy, everywhere in the world, not a single tattered copy in a bookstore, not any copy on a publishers computer, no ebooks.  Litterally every single copy destroyed except the copy I own.  I could then modify the copyright page and release his works as my own. How would anyone prove that I didn't write it.   Of course that is such a stupid asinine scenario nobody discusses that when covering what a copyright means.

If you download a copy of Bitcoin (or any open source project) you have a right to keep it, modify it, distribute it, publish it, etc.  Just like the MIT license says in plain english.


Nobody can take that right away.  Nobody. Obviously like any other right you can voluntarily give up your right but it can't be taken from you.

Definitely better than any movie

Woah, so if Satoshi would go in this direction, would the extant version need to be done away with (legally anyway)?

Not at all implying that he would, anyway, just wondering.

Removal of non-satoshi's work isn't a neccessary condition. It could be included into new version, if authors will accept the new license. But I don't think that they will accept proprietary license. So, Satoshi will be enforced to replace all 3rd-party code with the new, his own code with identical functionality. Otherwise the proprietary version will be dead because of incompatibility with the main chain.

Imagine Tommy Wiseau saying this. 


Interesting, so if that were to happen all the work that everybody else has done on it would be removed from this "new" Satoshi version, while people can keep modifying the old one? I'm learning!

PerfectAgent

Actually BTC developer (Satoshi) owns this code. As an author of original code, he has a permission to re-license it under proprietary license in any moment, if all 3rd-party commits will be removed or commiters will accept this decision. But he can't restrict access to already published copies.

I just ask that whoever's holding the github repo to not delete it! This is too rich!

Also, Vlad, you don't own this coin like you think, just like how the Bitcoin devs don't own Bitcoin. You've shown a lack of knowledge of how open source and cryptocurrencies work, sexism, insanity, incompetence, (if your story is to be believed) horrible money management, and a short fuse. Don't you get it? The fact that you explode and go into an insane rant every time someone points out a flaw in "your" coin or your knowledge of cryptocurrency in general is the only thing keeping this thread alive. That is the only reason your thread is active when you come back. People love the free entertainment, and hey, I love all this drama!

Hey VLAD you don't have any legal authority to restrict changes made to "NUG".  "You" (and I use that loosely) released it under the MIT license.  Since I am sure you haven't read it, here is a copy

https://github.com/nuggets-project/nuggets/blob/master/COPYING


You gave legal permission to everyone on the planet to "modify and publish copies" of NUG.  This permission is binding and irrevocable.  You have no legal authority to restrict anyone's access to the source code, or prevent them from making changes you don't like.  In the future you may want to learn among a list of other things about open source licensing before "developing" anything.

Free software man, as in free speech not free beer.  Any costs you may have incurred have no bearing on the license and don't give you any legal standing to sue anyone for anything.  How about you ask your super hacker genius Bitcoin developer to make some calls to the FBI or NSA.  They likely can get you up to speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license
http://opensource.org/licenses

Down syndrome or Assburgers? Which were you burdened with you poor child

Then tell us who he is
All the bitcoin client devs have published their names anyway so we already know him

Deal

Lol, now you're talking about elections.  And I don't live in Florida.  Ha , good one.  Ok, we've got 1 smart American here.

Are the rest of you like French or Brits?  Seriously cause the stuff you think is ok is shocking.



Good night.

Stupid.

My younger bro is 9 years younger than me. The pHD guy is 32.

Yea, weird he's he's finishing his phd at 32.  Really weird.  Do you stop for a moment to think before you shit from your mouth.

And he's not a secret agent.  Everyone knows he does contract work for everyone.  His name is not a secret.

His name just wants to be kept secret from trolls and idiots like you.  You know, pretend you knew something or were educated, and you get paid mad money and you get called in to the NSA one day for a 2 week contract Job and they do a search on you to make sure you're kosher and whoops, there's all this sketchy odd talk about you on some shit site by some shitbag trolls.  Kinda ruins things for you  (withiut totsl trust you dont get jobs at places like tje CIA OR NASA, erc, does snowden ring a bell) when you're supposed to be a pHD scientist your rep has to be gold, he can't be caught dead on shit sites like this where people think its normal to core to steal the property of other people.   

You do get that, right.  You can't be so stupid that I have to spell it out for you even more than that.

I'm out of here.  The stupidity is too much. 

Democracy?

lolol

It is not theft by majority vote. It would be at worst theft due to voters not bothering to vote, were it not that there was one vote and it was against, which was not even an option in the first place. There was nothing in even the demand about people voting for the theft, only an option to vote against it rather than stand idly by failing to intervene-by-voting-against-it.

-MarkM-