Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pushcx 1484 days ago
> The whitepaper was included with the rest of the source code, which was released with the MIT license, see e.g. this archive.

It doesn't? The archive he links to includes a copy of the whitepaper, but this repo is one archivist's collection of files, not an official distribution. The whitepaper is not in the nov08 distribution or the bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz, and the document doesn't include a license statement. I'd believe it's MIT licensed, but this post doesn't establish that fact or sound like he presented more compelling support of the idea to Amazon.

As a practical matter, it's vanishingly unlikely that Satoshi Nakamoto is going to file suit. But as a legal matter, he hasn't shown that the whitepaper was released under a license permitting redistribution or that he has permission from the author. Amazon gave him several options and opportunities, then declined to participate in apparent copyright infringement.

Amazon has a huge problem with people republishing others' books via KDP and their marketplace, even getting fake versions added to or replacing authentic listings. This process seems like it might be a pretty good way of addressing that. The inconvenience comes from not wanting to give the well-practiced scammers a guide to defeating the process, which is a common tradeoff.
1 comments
sprovoost 1483 days ago
If Amazon wanted more detailed proof, they could just ask for that. There's no limit to how pedantic one can be in evaluating evidence. Maybe they need a physical wet signature from a specific bureaucrat at the US copyright office, sent by courier. Without knowing what constitutes evidence in their eyes, there's simply too many permutations of things they might want to see. I tried a few of those permutations and then gave up.

> The whitepaper is not in the nov08 distribution or the bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz,

How do you know this? The original link in Satoshi's email points to a file that no longer exists and afaik he didn't publish a checksum. So maybe it WAS in there. But is that what the Amazon robot was worried about? Probably not...

Also, unless you were on the mailinglist yourself at the time, you can't even know that the email archive is real.

link
pushcx 1482 days ago
It's not even that the evidence isn't good enough, or that the archive appears inauthentic, it's that the evidence you've supplied doesn't even attempt to support your claim. Nothing in the archive you linked implies the whitepaper is under MIT.

(And: if you think this archive may be inauthentic, perhaps you should've chosen another for your evidence.)

link
sprovoost 1479 days ago
Ah, I see your point.

Here's a January 6, 2009 snapshot from the Way Back Machine. This was before he publicly released the code. The entire project is MIT licensed and only contained one file: the whitepaper. https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/http://sourceforg...

I should have linked to that.

> if you think this archive may be inauthentic

I don't think it's inauthentic. I'm saying Amazon could think it's inauthentic, and not tell me.

link