Stolen Bitcoin code | Bitcointalksearch.org

k9quaint

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 03, 2011, 09:01:10 AM

Guys Bitcoins is not licensed by GPL. It is the MIT license.

It allows closed source project.
It allows propretary projects.
It allows derivitve works.
It allows the derivitive to be licensed by any license the author wishes (no copyleft provision).

The ONLY thing it requires is the copyright and notice to be included with any derived distribution.
Somehow RealSolid still managed to figure out how to fuck it up (as well as trying to copyright his stolen work).

RS just wanted to pass the MIT licensed Bitcoin code off as his own work. As a benefit from this, he could attack other chains that copied his ideas for being unauthorized derivative works of SolidCoin.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Guys Bitcoins is not licensed by GPL. It is the MIT license.

It allows closed source project.
It allows propretary projects.
It allows derivitve works.
It allows the derivitive to be licensed by any license the author wishes (no copyleft provision).

The ONLY thing it requires is the copyright and notice to be included with any derived distribution.
Somehow RealSolid still managed to figure out how to fuck it up (as well as trying to copyright his stolen work).

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: steelhouse on November 02, 2011, 08:31:29 PM

If you use a gpl project, your project must be gpl too.

You can choose to keep your contributions under alternate licencing. Only the original GPL code that is used stays GPL if used and must be ackowledged as such.
Like building a proprietary/end user licensed front end on GPL framework.....it happens every day.

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: memvola on November 02, 2011, 10:49:12 PM

Quote from: Syke on November 02, 2011, 10:30:49 PM

Quote

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

It says "all copies". How can that not include binary distributions?

Be that as it may, it's not clearly defined within the license what "the Software" constitutes. It's not clear for me, since I'm not sure whether what is common knowledge and what would hold in a court would coincide. Consider how elaborate the GPL license is.

Well since RealSolid distributed SolidCoin both in source and in binary form, he covered his bases and violated the license no matter how you look at it. Isn't that just swell?

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Syke on November 02, 2011, 10:30:49 PM

Quote

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

It says "all copies". How can that not include binary distributions?

Be that as it may, it's not clearly defined within the license what "the Software" constitutes. It's not clear for me, since I'm not sure whether what is common knowledge and what would hold in a court would coincide. Consider how elaborate the GPL license is.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: finway on November 02, 2011, 09:24:13 PM

He just has no spirit of OPEN SOURCE.

That was made abundantly clear when he pulled this crap with SolidCoin 1.04:

Quote

Copyright (c) 2011 SolidCoin Developers

All changes made by SolidCoin developers require express permission to be used
in other projects, including original the Bitcoin project.

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: memvola on November 02, 2011, 09:15:22 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

The ONLY thing I mean literally ONLY thing he had to do to be compliant is include the copyright and notice with any distrubtion source or binary.

It isn't clear to me if the notice is required for binary distributions. Could be the case but it would be helpful (to me at least) if you can cite a discussion about it.

Let me quote the license for you.

Quote

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

It says "all copies". How can that not include binary distributions?

finway

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

He just has no spirit of OPEN SOURCE.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

The ONLY thing I mean literally ONLY thing he had to do to be compliant is include the copyright and notice with any distrubtion source or binary.

It isn't clear to me if the notice is required for binary distributions. Could be the case but it would be helpful (to me at least) if you can cite a discussion about it.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 02, 2011, 08:55:59 PM

And for a proprietary version, yes they would have to start from scratch, only the protocol itself doesn't require a license.

Don't think that's the case. I've been licencing my software as BSD and usually use BSD-licensed ones. BSD or MIT licensed code has been included in proprietary software, including Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: memvola on November 02, 2011, 08:48:06 PM

(EDIT: Yeah OK, probably the binary too, but I don't think that's the problem at hand). This is the intended consequence of the MIT license. For instance, you can include code from Bitcoin in a proprietary POS system.

It is, it's the same thing with creative commons commercial attributed licenses.
A commercial POS system should have no problems citing that. And for a proprietary version, yes they would have to start from scratch, only the protocol itself doesn't require a license.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: dree12 on November 02, 2011, 08:32:59 PM

Quote from: steelhouse on November 02, 2011, 08:31:29 PM

If the code is released non open source, I think his license might be invalid and you can use the source freely. I am not a lawyer though. If you use a gpl project, your project must be gpl too.

Bitcoin is MIT.

Which means that he can do whatever he wants with the code, doesn't have to open the derivative's source. If he distributes the source, he needs to attach this license to it, that's all (EDIT: Yeah OK, probably the binary too, but I don't think that's the problem at hand). This is the intended consequence of the MIT license. For instance, you can include code from Bitcoin in a proprietary POS system.

I wouldn't even touch Bitcoin if it weren't open source in the first place, for good reason. But it's a totally different story. For instance, SolidCoin could release necessary specs to build a fully functional node. In that case there is no need for releasing the client source for the users to trust the system.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: dree12 on November 02, 2011, 08:32:59 PM

Quote from: steelhouse on November 02, 2011, 08:31:29 PM

If the code is released non open source, I think his license might be invalid and you can use the source freely. I am not a lawyer though. If you use a gpl project, your project must be gpl too.

Bitcoin is MIT.

Yeah and while it is less restrictive than the gpl RS still archived to violate it.
I am beginning to wonder if this was on purpose.

btw: anybody has given oracle a hint yet? He is cheating them on license fees...

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: steelhouse on November 02, 2011, 08:31:29 PM

If the code is released non open source, I think his license might be invalid and you can use the source freely. I am not a lawyer though. If you use a gpl project, your project must be gpl too.

Technically he doesn't need to release the source or required it to be open source. The Bitcoin license is MIT which allows closed source projects.

The one thing he HAS to do is retain the original notice and copyright of the original creators and his arrogance fucked that up.

Snapman

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

BTCRadio Owner

It works the same way as website templates with branding, just because you remove their branding doesn't automatically make it yours...

This is a clear cut case of code theft, plain and simple.

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1077

Quote from: steelhouse on November 02, 2011, 08:31:29 PM

If the code is released non open source, I think his license might be invalid and you can use the source freely. I am not a lawyer though. If you use a gpl project, your project must be gpl too.

Bitcoin is MIT.

steelhouse

hero member

Activity: 717

Merit: 501

If the code is released non open source, I think his license might be invalid and you can use the source freely. I am not a lawyer though. If you use a gpl project, your project must be gpl too.

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1077

Quote from: steelhouse on November 02, 2011, 08:20:38 PM

He is supposedly going to release code open source. Dump your BTC.

He has released the code, but not open source and it doesn't seem he has the intention to.

steelhouse

hero member

Activity: 717

Merit: 501

He is supposedly going to release code open source. Dump your BTC.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Yeah, any of the main bitcoin developers could file a DCMA complaint to Realsolids hosting provider pretty easily.

Topic: Stolen Bitcoin code (Read 2390 times)