How can his claim be in violation of this?
"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."
this MIT license ensures the original whitepaper. Any deviation from that isn't bitcoin.
You forget that attribution to Satoshi Nakamoto must be given, IDK if you left that part out on purpose?
In other words you can do " use, copy, modify,
merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software" but you can't call it "Bitcoin" without attribution to the author. You can call it something like "Bitcoin Core" or Bitcoin Cash" etc.
I watched a long presentation on this part and the whitepaper itself, and the copyright MIT license, btw this applies to all MIT licenses and is common sense.
Actually I was really asking. I don't really know much about licenses, but I still don't see how the actions of one person a judge ruled not to be Satoshi can sue bitcoin core.
Oddbean new post about login | logout 