On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 12:18:08PM -0500, Andrew Johnson wrote: > The purpose of this list is highly technical discussion, not political > disagreements. > > Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or > pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the bitcoin > project? If not, you're wildly off topic.
I don't know if it is; that's the problem. Given Sergio's prior behavior of attempting to use patents offensively, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that Rootstock does in fact intend to encumber this proposal with patents. So the obvious thing to do, is for Rootstock to give us all a legally binding guarantee that they will not be using patents offensively, eliminating the problem and allowing us to return to productive collaboration. Remember that this kind of requirement is very common in standards bodies, e.g. by having all companies contributing to the standards in question join a patent pool, or by making legally binding pledges/licenses to ensure any patents they hold can't be used offensively. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
