There seems to be concerns on if this applies to the first sentence.
The Bitcoin SV blockchain is defined, for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767 with this hash: 000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b.
Definitions, such as this one, can come in the beginning, middle or end of the license. It's location does not matter, the definition applies throughout the entire document. If you place the definition in the first sentence you get this, which explicitly makes the BSX chain valid under the license, even if it competes with another nChain branch.
2 - The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
can only be used on a Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with this hash: 000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b.
[doublepost=1558418408][/doublepost]
Open source licenses are notoriously hard to write. Which is why there are so few of them and they are revised so infrequently. This may not even count as open source. I'd be interested to hear what the FSF has to say about it.
That is a really good point and is definitely true. To be fair I have not reviewed the rest of the license, and for a lawyer to do so is beyond the scope of a simple ask.
Maybe it would be better to use the MIT or Apache 2.0 license, but add a scoping clause that limits the license to the BSV branch as defined above.
All that said, companies are free to choose whichever license they want for their own work. It's likely this choice was considered and the current license is what the decision was. We can ask for changes, but for now it is a take it or leave it scenario most likely. Everyone will have to make their own decisions on if they are comfortable with it. On the balance I think it is fine.
[doublepost=1558418615][/doublepost]
that's all well and good but I'd run it by him again specifically using the example I did of an attempted BSV soft fork pre advertised as trying to steal coins that gets preempted by a BSX hard fork (the BCH August 2017 scenario) that "had to change the ticker" meant to stop the coin stealing and compete for market share and price with BSV .
That was the scenario I asked about. That said, friend quick review requests are not as legally thorough as paying by the hour console...
[doublepost=1558418616][/doublepost]
@rocks I think there is a problem with that definition. It says "The Bitcoin SV blockchain". "
The" implies singular yet under Cypherdoc's scenario, there is more than one blockchain containing that block so you have contradictory writing.
In that definition the singular "
the" references the blockchain up to block 556767 with that hash. There is only 1 blockchain that falls into that definition. It is a statement on the singular chain at that point in time. On a go-forward basis a block chain is actually a tree structure and there can be multiple future branches from that singular starting point.
If that wasn't the case, then the definition makes no sense because if there are two competing chains then the singular definition falls apart, and it is the license, not nChain, that gets to choose which is "
the" chain. But that's not the way it reads to me.
