Indeed. A somewhat rhetorical question ...
Herewith, an interesting discussion from: Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper - thread topic ...
...
...
The most important and relevant bit ...
... "Background
The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society.
Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas. It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. " ...
- http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/
...
- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flaunter
...
The original Bitcoin whitepaper has no copyright or any form of licensing whatsoever.
- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
It isn't even copyleft. It is literally copy left.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
"@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED"
...
Only Signed and Verified will do i.e. Cryptographically assured (as above).
Copyright is automatic. It does not have to be displayed or enforced.
However - there was a conscious choice by Satoshi Nakamoto to publish it on the cypherpunks mailing list.
This makes it subject to the CPL of the mailing list - which makes it public domain.
Satoshi received consideration in return (the ability to distribute the publication) so (in my opinion) it is a legally binding contract.
Indeed this is one for the lawyers to argue over. Are we assuming Satoshi was an American based in America here, for example ...
3 Commonly Misunderstood U.S. Copyright Concepts
- https://www.copyrightlaws.com/u-s-copyright-law-misinformation/
International copyright treaties
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treaties
Universal Copyright Convention
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention
Public domain
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
Again, I believe that it is a valid legal argument that only the proven originator can enforce.
This also goes a long way in explaining CSW's claims and actions as a 'bad actor' and impostor here.
Herewith, an interesting discussion from: Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper - thread topic ...
"fake team member and plagiarized white paper" and more ...
No sh*t. Relevance?
Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll?
Apparently being a fraud and a conman wasn't low enough for him.
This ^
- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE
"Open BSV License
Copyright (c) 2019 Bitcoin Association
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:
1 - The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
2 - The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
can only be used on the Bitcoin SV blockchains. The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" and
the test blockchains that are supported by the un-modified 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.
Version 0.1.1 of the Bitcoin SV software, and prior versions of software upon which it was based,
were licensed under the MIT License, which is included below.
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
Copyright (c) 2009-2015 Bitcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
Copyright (c) 2017 The Bitcoin ABC developers
Copyright (c) 2018 Bitcoin Association
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."
...
Which came first the chicken or the egg ?
CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.
It's time to BUILD, a solid legal case against BSV. - SWIM
...
- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/blockstream-commits-patent-nonaggression
...
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (5/8) Movie CLIP - Invincible Sword Goddess (2000) HD
- https://youtu.be/X5SaZ8EmSpw *Satire*
"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."
No sh*t. Relevance?
Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll?
Apparently being a fraud and a conman wasn't low enough for him.
This ^
- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE
"Open BSV License
Copyright (c) 2019 Bitcoin Association
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:
1 - The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
2 - The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
can only be used on the Bitcoin SV blockchains. The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" and
the test blockchains that are supported by the un-modified 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.
Version 0.1.1 of the Bitcoin SV software, and prior versions of software upon which it was based,
were licensed under the MIT License, which is included below.
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
Copyright (c) 2009-2015 Bitcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
Copyright (c) 2017 The Bitcoin ABC developers
Copyright (c) 2018 Bitcoin Association
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."
...
Which came first the chicken or the egg ?
CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.
It's time to BUILD, a solid legal case against BSV. - SWIM
...
- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/blockstream-commits-patent-nonaggression
...
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (5/8) Movie CLIP - Invincible Sword Goddess (2000) HD
- https://youtu.be/X5SaZ8EmSpw *Satire*
...
This is an interesting discussion (see below) regarding whether the original whitepaper is open source or whether copyright applies.
The release of the whitepaper was by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list.
The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/
How convenient for the next public display of ignorance to come so quickly. Copyright is established the instant a work is affixed in tangible form. That copyright exists fully independent if any registration thereof. Absent any explicit delegation of rights to the public at large by its creator, the Bitcoin white paper is not public domain.
The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/
So that is still for the jury to decide.
Cypherpunks of which Satoshi Nakamoto (and later CSW) were members of clearly state:
So there are two scenarios:
CSW is not Satoshi Nakamoto in which case he is presenting fraudulent documents and attempting to commit a fraud.
CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto and breached the moral principles of the group of people that directly assisted him with the creation of bitcoin.
Used their knowledge, skills and time in the creation of something that he later would try to claim IP rights to contrary to the groups goals. Resulting in a feeling of exploitation and huge betrayal.
Your choice. Which do you pick ?
The release of the whitepaper was by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list.
The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/
How convenient for the next public display of ignorance to come so quickly. Copyright is established the instant a work is affixed in tangible form. That copyright exists fully independent if any registration thereof. Absent any explicit delegation of rights to the public at large by its creator, the Bitcoin white paper is not public domain.
The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/
So that is still for the jury to decide.
Quote
The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any derived or modified work in any manner they choose. Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain.
Cypherpunks of which Satoshi Nakamoto (and later CSW) were members of clearly state:
Quote
The enforcement of IP law and anonymity are in direct conflict. To fully enforce IP laws, anonymity would have to be outlawed. Cypherpunks believe this would be a bad thing, because control of information imparts power, and anonymity gives individuals control over disclosure of information about themselves and their actions.
So there are two scenarios:
CSW is not Satoshi Nakamoto in which case he is presenting fraudulent documents and attempting to commit a fraud.
CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto and breached the moral principles of the group of people that directly assisted him with the creation of bitcoin.
Used their knowledge, skills and time in the creation of something that he later would try to claim IP rights to contrary to the groups goals. Resulting in a feeling of exploitation and huge betrayal.
Your choice. Which do you pick ?
...
The most important and relevant bit ...
... "Background
The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society.
Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas. It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. " ...
- http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/
...
- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flaunter
...
The original Bitcoin whitepaper has no copyright or any form of licensing whatsoever.
- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
It isn't even copyleft. It is literally copy left.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
"@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED"
...
Only Signed and Verified will do i.e. Cryptographically assured (as above).
Copyright is automatic. It does not have to be displayed or enforced.
However - there was a conscious choice by Satoshi Nakamoto to publish it on the cypherpunks mailing list.
This makes it subject to the CPL of the mailing list - which makes it public domain.
Satoshi received consideration in return (the ability to distribute the publication) so (in my opinion) it is a legally binding contract.
Indeed this is one for the lawyers to argue over. Are we assuming Satoshi was an American based in America here, for example ...
3 Commonly Misunderstood U.S. Copyright Concepts
- https://www.copyrightlaws.com/u-s-copyright-law-misinformation/
International copyright treaties
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treaties
Universal Copyright Convention
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention
Public domain
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
Again, I believe that it is a valid legal argument that only the proven originator can enforce.
This also goes a long way in explaining CSW's claims and actions as a 'bad actor' and impostor here.