Copyright and license in the console program, link to the source code, link to the forum discussion #1930

The console program doesn't have a -license/-version/-copyright option, nor does it show the copyright and the license of the program.

The installer doesn't include the various licenses of the various "parts" of the program (GPL, LGPL, BerkeleyDB, OpenSSL license) (I mean the txt files)

If you include the copyright of OpenSSL in the readme.txt then you should include all the other copyrights (at least for BerkeleyDB, but I don't think doing a "quantitative" analysis is the right thing to do. All the "external" copyrights or none of the "external" copyrights in the readme.txt). The same for the MiniUPnP library, the QT library (that at least has an about dialog), the libqrencode. All these copyrights should be also present in the about dialog.

Both the console program, the qt program and the readme(s) don't have/show a link to the source code repository (https://github/bitcoin/bitcoin). While perhaps putting the link would increase the number of persons that come here to ask questions, normally open source projects have links to their repositories.

Both the console program, the qt program and the readme(s) don't have/show a link to the forum discussion about the specific version (for example for the 0.7 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110243.0= )

The asset_attribution.txt file isn't included in the installable release of the software.

I think it should be made clear in the readme.txt that, while the license of the source code is MIT, the license of the combined program is a chimera based on GPL/LGPL/BerkeleyDB/OpenSSL (and note that the OpenSSL license isn't compatible with the GPL license, see http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 ) and a discussion of what this imply (the combined product is protected by two strong copyleft licenses, BerkeleyDB and GPL, plus some clauses about advertisement and what needs to be written in the copyrights from the other licenses)

I won't suggest fixes because I think the exact specification of these things should be decided by the higher-ups.

I'd also suggest that the licensing include a provision which states that the block chain data files (blk*.dat) are submitted to the public domain.

I'm not sure there's a free - or even legal - way to do that. Mere usage (including mining) does not require accepting the license at all. Most blocks mined these days aren't created by bitcoind either. I think we'll have to aim for a judicial common-sense ruling at some point.

I'll add that if someone wanted to inject copyright then he would inject it at the transaction level, not at the block level. For example the "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" is a sentence that can probably be protected by copyright (it's written in a poetic/uncommon way, it isn't a cold representation of facts) and it was inserted in the CTxIn.

"calculated" blocks aren't protected by USA style copyright because they are automatically generated without human input and they aren't surely a form of art. If someone wanted to generate an "artistic" block (for example by only selecting transactions that are "beautiful" in his eye) he would need to use a special program (so he would bypass the license restriction).

Understood. It would seem that some legal stupidity is possible if someone were to burn the block chain on a DVD and submit it for copyright as the author (in the US). I can imagine some level of ignorance and ineptitude gets it registered. Then they could start sending out DMCA takedown notices to ISPs using IPs from running clients. Or some other nonsense like that.

Just thought I would mention it. Others have told me that I'm seeing a problem where there isn't one. The only Bitcoin reference I could find in U.S. copyright registrations was CBS The Good Wife Season 3 Episode 13: Bitcoin For Dummies.