Switch to GPL

A thought has occurred to me that bitcoins client is released under mit which allows for closed source clients that would give someone an advantage over everyone by modifying the client and not releasing the code. If we changed to GPL this would force anyone who created a modified client to release the source code under the terms of the GPL.

A few thoughts for discussion here:

Do you think switching to GPL would be a good idea?

If someone released a closed source client how could we enforce the GPL?

Would changing to a GPL stifle development in anyway?

Would this make it less likely for new clients to be developed?

Of course those anarcho-capitalits among us who do not recognize “copyright” as natural because it is an attempt to limit what someone else can do with their knowledge and information is not “scarce” as each new copy does not diminish the original owners property. So you cannot copyright code any more than music or anything else. Once you share an idea with someone else it is in their head and there is no taking it back nor telling them what they can do. Copyright does not exist without the state and is ARBITRARY in its duration.

Conclusion, copyright and licenses only matter to statists. It is a “monopoly” that is maintained by force vs free competition.

If you want a “competitive advantage” never release the code. If you release the code, you have no right to use force to prevent others from using, distributing, or creating derivative works from it.

Ehh… Macho, bitcoin IS open source. MIT license IS a open source license. No closed source, proprietary software or DRM here.

If the only library is closed source, then there’s a project to make an open source one.

If the only library is GPL, then there’s a project to make a non-GPL one.

If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we can stop re-writing it.

I don’t question that GPL is a good license for operating systems, especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS.  For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is overdone.

Takeover? Bitcoin will always be open source, because it is now licensed using the MIT license. This means you can take the code and do pretty much everything with it. Everyone can therefore grab always use and add to it. It’s something SOME (I am not talking about anyone in this forum) GPL advocates forget sometimes. I did so multiple times 😛 You can’t somehow take it away.

Rearing IP. I don’t know too much about it, but isn’t it somehow free, because there is no patent or something similar yet? As I said I have only minimal knowledge on this topic.

If the only library is closed source, then there’s a project to make an open source one.

If the only library is GPL, then there’s a project to make a non-GPL one.

If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we can stop re-writing it.

I don’t question that GPL is a good license for operating systems, especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS. For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is overdone.

Satoshi,

So you support people taking your code, modifying it to skim bitcoins off the miner, and then releasing the binary without releasing the modified source code?

Syke: While I understand some of the community may not appreciate the manners in which a seemingly friendly community member has established their proprietary product, consider businesses that offer products or services for profit. Now consider that one of those businesses or entrepreneurial individuals has established a kind of closeness within the community. Instead of focusing negatively on their activities, they should instead be appreciated that they are nice enough to participate amongst the community directly. From my observations, puddinpop is providing a valuable service and is handling the negative reviews/feedback as an accepted or nonevil organization/business would.

While I particularly advocate and look forward to an open source implementation, it isn’t necessary to aggress on those that conform to such expectancies. To do so establishes bad reputation for the consumer. Consumers can be evil too. ^_^

In regards to your comment, an MIT license allows the code to be open source and for anyone and everyone to use and implement bitcoin into anything and everything, whether it is released as open source or established into a viable for-profit product. To aid in the acceptance of Bitcoin for already-established businesses, MIT is a convenient license that will allow a business to consider Bitcoin. If the license were GPL, then it would hinder growth/acceptance of Bitcoin throughout well-established businesses.

The particular friendly community member that is offering a product that generates profits is not a well-established business and perhaps the product isn’t a kind of product you would expect to pay for, but it is a product nonetheless, and therefore, you must consider evaluating it as such and handle responding, considering and associating with the individual as you would any other business. Blah blah blah, I’m sure you get my point.