Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Exemption for services that do not control keys #12

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

markdavidlamb
Copy link
Contributor

The developers of Bitcoin-qt, Electrum, Armoury and any other wallets where users control their private keys should not need licensing. Licensing them is also unenforceable and goes against many legal precedents set regarding Open Source Software and cryptography.

The developers of Bitcoin-qt, Electrum, Armoury and any other wallets where users control their private keys should not need licensing. Licensing them is also unenforceable and goes against many legal precedents set regarding Open Source Software and cryptography.
@pmlaw
Copy link
Contributor

pmlaw commented Jul 22, 2014

Think of Bitcoin Core as a smoke test for the regs. If Bitcoin Core developers could reasonably be interpreted as within the scope of the regs then it's a failed test. A proper definition of custody should solve for this.

@markdavidlamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes @pmlaw, I completely agree. A more fair/rational set of regs would need to both 1. not leave room for interpretations that lead to anyone deciding that bitcoin core could be within the regs and 2. in the exemptions, specifically leave out any possibility for bitcoin-core type developers being within the regs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants