Pages:
Author

Topic: Solidcoin DMCA takedown - page 4. (Read 10246 times)

legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
January 13, 2012, 06:39:55 PM
#74
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.

The solidcoin people (person?) can easily comply with the basically free license.  What they did is wrong as they took the code and put new terms on it (which they can not do) as well as stripped out the proper credits.  Making it right is near trivial and should be done to respect everyone who put in code into the bitcoin project.  



Ironically they CAN change the terms.  MIT license has no "copyleft" (google it) provision.  You can take Bitcoin and make a closed source, pay only version if you want.  MIT license allows you to do that.  MIT license allows you to do almost anything EXCEPT:

a) remove copyright from other's work
b) remove the MIT license notification.

That's it.  That is literally all you need to do to be compliant and somehow King RealScam figured out a way to mess that up (willfully IMHO).

Quote
Copyright (c) 2009-2011 Bitcoin Developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights

to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.


THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.


Ok, but adding terms is a whole lot less effective if he has to keep the MIT license and copyright in there.  But you are correct, so all he has to do is put that text back in there. 
legendary
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1193
January 13, 2012, 06:19:44 PM
#73
Ironically they CAN change the terms.  MIT license has no "copyleft" (google it) provision.  You can take Bitcoin and make a closed source, pay only version if you want.  MIT license allows you to do that.  MIT license allows you to do almost anything EXCEPT:

a) remove copyright from other's work
b) remove the MIT license notification.

That's it.  That is literally all you need to do to be compliant and somehow King RealScam figured out a way to mess that up (willfully IMHO).
And again, he has figured out another way to mess it up. He thinks he can remove all copyright notices from every file, and then bury a vague reference that there may be some code fragments that may be copyright by Bitcoin Developers included somewhere in the package, but he won't tell you, you have to figure it out by comparing SolidCoin source code with Bitcoin source code.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 13, 2012, 05:40:24 PM
#72
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.

The solidcoin people (person?) can easily comply with the basically free license.  What they did is wrong as they took the code and put new terms on it (which they can not do) as well as stripped out the proper credits.  Making it right is near trivial and should be done to respect everyone who put in code into the bitcoin project.  



Ironically they CAN change the terms.  MIT license has no "copyleft" (google it) provision.  You can take Bitcoin and make a closed source, pay only version if you want.  MIT license allows you to do that.  MIT license allows you to do almost anything EXCEPT:

a) remove copyright from other's work
b) remove the MIT license notification.

That's it.  That is literally all you need to do to be compliant and somehow King RealScam figured out a way to mess that up (willfully IMHO).

Quote
Copyright (c) 2009-2011 Bitcoin Developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights

to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.


THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
January 13, 2012, 05:37:20 PM
#71
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.

The solidcoin people (person?) can easily comply with the basically free license.  What they did is wrong as they took the code and put new terms on it (which they can not do) as well as stripped out the proper credits.  Making it right is near trivial and should be done to respect everyone who put in code into the bitcoin project. 

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 13, 2012, 02:17:24 PM
#70
Like the innovative ways that SolidCoin addresses the 51% issue, the pyramid scheme issue, and the deflation issue. According to you, we should patent those. Thanks for the advice.

Go ahead.  Waste about $4K or so on a scam coin.  Current time frame for a response (not necessarily a patent) is about 17 month for the USPTO.

So my advice is go ahead.  Of course we both know nobody will.  ScamCoin isn't worth a $4 investment much less a $4000 one.
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
January 13, 2012, 02:15:52 PM
#69
What other legal protects should "all true Bitcoin users" restrict themselves from.  Should businesses not file trademark registrations,  should we not seek take downs of scam sites,  should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?

Like the innovative ways that SolidCoin addresses the 51% issue, the pyramid scheme issue, and the deflation issue. According to you, we should patent those. Thanks for the advice.

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 13, 2012, 10:43:41 AM
#68
should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?
I was with you up till this. Patents are not protection. Patents are monopolistic abuse.

Well we will need to agree to disagree.

Patents CAN (and often ARE) abused.  So are drugs and so are guns.

A good friend of mine developed an innovative product only to have it stolen by company who showed it to and "wasn't" interested.  Long story short after a couple years of legal battles if it hadn't been for his patent he would have made nothing.  The product in question does about $50M in sales.  His royalty is about 1% of sales price.  Companies would gladly violate the law (even with a filed patent) then give up 1% of the revenue for a product that wouldn't exist without his innovation.

I do think we need significant patent reform.  ... bad.



legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
January 13, 2012, 10:34:14 AM
#67
should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?
I was with you up till this. Patents are not protection. Patents are monopolistic abuse.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 13, 2012, 08:24:04 AM
#66
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.

I personally don't support copyright law, but if you do, keep in mind that you will have to sacrifice free speech & market competition.

But, Bitcoin, in my view, should be able to operate without help from governments. Filing a DMCA report is basically like crying to the government to help us so that we can stay in business. Why do we need government to help us for this? There are many other ways to verify who the authors of certain pieces of software are.


Saying Bitcoin should operate without any "help" from govt is naive.

So when someone breaks into your house and beats your face in with a hammer until you give them the password to your wallet and walks away with your life savings you aren't going to call the Police?  There are many ways to get justice other than calling the Police.

If corporations decide they will engage in a massive DDOS attack against the blockchain in order to promote their corporate control version you want any law enforcement to look the other way?  There are many ways to end the attack other than law enforcement.

Stupid.  Beyond stupid. The reality is Bitcoin exists in a world of laws. Laws will certainly be used AGAINST Bitcoin regardless of what users, developers, and service providers do.  So to then tie the hands of users, developers, and service providers to not use law to PROTECT Bitcoin makes no sense.

What other legal protects should "all true Bitcoin users" restrict themselves from.  Should businesses not file trademark registrations,  should we not seek take downs of scam sites,  should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?
hero member
Activity: 848
Merit: 507
January 13, 2012, 06:51:17 AM
#65
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
January 13, 2012, 03:21:45 AM
#64
If Coinhunter hadn't attempted to restrict others from Solidcoin using Copyright law, I wouldn't have cared.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Yup, exactly what I think of this: he uses copyright laws against us, we do the same. We're not all gandhis.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
January 13, 2012, 02:47:49 AM
#63
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.

I personally don't support copyright law, but if you do, keep in mind that you will have to sacrifice free speech & market competition.

But, Bitcoin, in my view, should be able to operate without help from governments. Filing a DMCA report is basically like crying to the government to help us so that we can stay in business. Why do we need government to help us for this? There are many other ways to verify who the authors of certain pieces of software are.


If Coinhunter hadn't attempted to restrict others from Solidcoin using Copyright law, I wouldn't have cared.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
member
Activity: 100
Merit: 16
January 13, 2012, 02:43:40 AM
#62
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.

I personally don't support copyright law, but if you do, keep in mind that you will have to sacrifice free speech & market competition.

But, Bitcoin, in my view, should be able to operate without help from governments. Filing a DMCA report is basically like crying to the government to help us so that we can stay in business. Why do we need government to help us for this? There are many other ways to verify who the authors of certain pieces of software are.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
January 13, 2012, 02:04:16 AM
#61
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.
Yup, not only he turns free software into proprietary one, but he removes the credits... That's a bit too much I think...
The worst thing is, he then gives lessons about the spirit of open source...
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 13, 2012, 01:27:33 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.
member
Activity: 100
Merit: 16
January 13, 2012, 01:12:41 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.
p2k
newbie
Activity: 33
Merit: 0
January 11, 2012, 08:53:13 PM
#58
Yeah, I lust left the desert. I'm declaring it to someone else's problem. Have fun!
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
January 11, 2012, 05:20:43 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
p2k
newbie
Activity: 33
Merit: 0
January 11, 2012, 12:08:07 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.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
January 11, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
#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.
Pages:
Jump to: