taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #14130, Submission of Bitcoin Knots


task #14130: Submission of Bitcoin Knots

Submitted by:  Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Submitted on:  Tue 23 Aug 2016 06:21:03 PM UTC  
Should Start On:  Tue 23 Aug 2016 12:00:00 AM UTC Should be Finished on:  Fri 02 Sep 2016 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  5 - Normal
Status:  Cancelled Privacy:  Public
Percent Complete:  0% Assigned to:  -X- <hlam>
Open/Closed:  Closed Effort:  0.00

Add a New Comment (Rich Markup)

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.


( Jump to the original submission)

Tue 31 Jan 2017 01:32:37 PM UTC, comment #28: 

Thank you; cancelling.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Tue 24 Jan 2017 08:38:38 AM UTC, comment #27: 

Every package may have bugs.

Did GCC maintainers reject patches that would add correct notices to documentation files?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Mon 23 Jan 2017 09:20:39 PM UTC, comment #26: 

Pretty sure every source file already has a copyright notice... just not documentation files where it would be annoying to readers (and are mostly unmodified from upstream). Not even official GNU projects (I'm looking at GCC) have a notice on every documentation file.

Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Mon 23 Jan 2017 05:09:34 PM UTC, comment #25: 

Yes, but notices in every source file are still needed,

You don't have to agree with us, but this is Savannah policy; if you don't share our attitude, I think it would be better for all of us to cancel your application, wouldn't it?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Sun 22 Jan 2017 06:51:16 PM UTC, comment #24: 

It's covered under the project-wide MIT license.

Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Sun 22 Jan 2017 04:18:12 PM UTC, comment #23: 

The GNU project does consider it reasonable to have licensing notice for every documentation file (documentation must also be free, and without a licensing notice it isn't even distributable), and it's a requirement of Savannah ("Apply valid copyright and license notices ... to each source file in your project" and "Source files include Makefiles, scripts, and ChangeLogs from your project, not just bare source code.").

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Sun 22 Jan 2017 02:13:38 PM UTC, comment #22: 

#9 is a very old comment. https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/archive/0.13.x-knots.zip has a complete copy of the current code now.

I'm not sure I consider it reasonable to require a licensing notice on every single documentation (ie, non-code; *.md) file, though... In any case, these are all maintained upstream, with less than 10 lines changed in Knots, except for release notes, which I've never seen any project put a copyright notice on.

Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Sun 22 Jan 2017 10:20:16 AM UTC, comment #21: 

In https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/archive/tmp_savannah.zip mentioned in #9, files like configure.ac, README.md, contrib/bitcon-qt.pro, contrib/devtools/fix-copyright-header.py, doc/*.md still lack copyright or licensing notices.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Wed 21 Dec 2016 05:46:59 AM UTC, comment #20: 


Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Thu 17 Nov 2016 11:25:20 PM UTC, comment #19: 

FSF licensing (Brett Smith, at the time) stated that generic copyright holders like "Bitcoin Core developers" are ok.
So this is ok.

More info (there are previous messages in the thread, including in the previous month, but this one is the most informative): https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2010-04/msg00005.html
(I will update the wiki to talk about this.)

Thanks.  --karl

Karl Berry <karl>
Site Administrator
Thu 17 Nov 2016 06:16:40 PM UTC, comment #18: 

Luke: OK, thanks.  I'm not sure if that will do the trick; I need to check.

List: please could others comment on whether the position outlined in comments #15-#17 will be OK for hosting on Savannah?

Best wishes


-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Thu 17 Nov 2016 02:02:15 AM UTC, comment #17: 

We use generic copyright headers that state "Copyright Bitcoin Core developers", which is defined as each contributor owning their own contributions.

Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Wed 16 Nov 2016 04:16:58 PM UTC, comment #16: 

Luke: I don't think copyright headers "that it inherits from the reference code" would be sufficient to cover modifications, because they would apply to the copyright holders named in those original headers.

For example, "(c) Fred Bloggs 2016 This program is free software licensed under the XYZ license..." wouldn't cover modifications made by John Smith.

-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Wed 16 Nov 2016 03:37:26 PM UTC, comment #15: 

Every file in the project has a clear copyright header. A complete description of each modification included in Knots, including links to the upstream merge requests which includes the full author attributions, is on http://bitcoinknots.org/ and is covered under the same copyright headers that it inherits from the reference code.

Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Wed 16 Nov 2016 03:29:41 PM UTC, comment #14: 

Luke: having taken this case on I would like to see it through, but if you still want to get your project approved for hosting on Savannah, I need a bit more help from you.  As I said at the beginning, the complexity of this case is above what I have handled before, so your helping me in fulfilling my volunteer role in helping you will be much appreciated.

Specifically, I don't understand what you mean when you say that you don't hold the copyright to many modifications.  I had understood that this project was a modified version of the reference Bitcoin software.  Could you please expand on what the project consists of?  Perhaps looking in fine detail at the diffs you supplied would reveal the answer to some extent, but having put a fair bit of time into this submission up to this point, I would appreciate it if you would save me some (time) by giving me some more information to go on.

The reason I have been raising all the issues about copyright notices is that, before any project can be hosted on Savannah, software forming part of the project needs to be clearly identifiable as free software.  Any modifications to an existing free software project not specifically and clearly licensed in themselves would not meet that requirement. 

-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Thu 10 Nov 2016 06:21:12 AM UTC, comment #13: 

That wouldn't make any sense, since I don't hold the copyright to many modifications, and the existing copyright header already covers them.

Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Thu 10 Nov 2016 01:19:35 AM UTC, comment #12: 

Luke: sorry for not replying before.

If I understand Karl's post from 2 Sep correctly, it means that modified files need to have (an additional) notice from you specifying the license on your modifications.  I can't see that that's the case.

Karl: could you tell me if I am wrong about the above, please?

Best wishes


-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Mon 31 Oct 2016 04:47:36 AM UTC, comment #11: 

The copyright notices are already in upstream files, so the diff would only show you it in the new files.

Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Mon 31 Oct 2016 12:00:45 AM UTC, comment #10: 

Luke: thanks for this.  Having looked at the first few thousand lines of your diff, I can't see that any of the files altered have copyright notices.  You say that you have added them; I could well be missing something. 

If you need guidance on how the copyright notices should look, do have a look at the page I linked further down or come back to me.  I might not know all the answers applicable to a big project like this with a lot of contributors and changes, but I will certainly try to find out for you.

-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Tue 25 Oct 2016 02:06:49 AM UTC, comment #9: 

Okay, I've got a draft for the next release wherein I believe all the copyright notices have been added:



Thank you,


Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Sat 03 Sep 2016 03:19:16 AM UTC, comment #8: 

Karl, thanks.

Luke: building on Karl's comment, if you could make sure all the modified files have suitable headers and reupload your tarball, I will be happy to look at again.  Guidance is available on the GNU site [1]. 

Best wishes


[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Fri 02 Sep 2016 03:53:51 PM UTC, comment #7: 

Files that are part of the original sources being developed for the project should all have notices.  All the ones you say below seem like they fall into that category.

It is only third-party files pulled in from other libraries and sources, that are written/maintained by other people, where the rules can be relaxed.

Karl Berry <karl>
Site Administrator
Wed 31 Aug 2016 01:14:16 AM UTC, comment #6: 

Karl, thanks, and sorry for not gripping it sooner.

I note the following files below are modified in your version.  If my understanding of Karl's comment is right, the main thing that needs to be done is for the licensing position on your changes to be clear.  I am not sure what that means in terms of required changes to the files themselves and/or any overall notice; Karl, could you advise, please?

- Makefile.am
- configure.ac
- build-aux/m4/bitcoin_subdir_to_include.m4
- doc/bips.md
- doc/build-unix.md
- doc/files.md
- libbitcoinconsensus.pc.in
- qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py
- qa/pull-tester/tests_config.py.in
- qa/rpc-tests/invalidateblock.py
- qa/rpc-tests/replace-by-fee.py
- share/genbuild.sh
- share/setup.nsi.in
- src/Makefile.am
- src/Makefile.qt.include
- src/Makefile.test.include
- src/bitcoin-cli.cpp
- src/bitcoin-tx.cpp
- src/bitcoind.cpp
- src/chain.cpp
- src/chain.h
- src/chainparams.cpp
- src/chainparams.h
- src/clientversion.cpp
- src/clientversion.h
- src/init.cpp
- src/init.h
- src/main.cpp
- src/main.h
- src/miner.cpp
- src/miner.h
- src/net.cpp
- src/net.h
- src/protocol.h
- src/txmempool.cpp
- src/txmempool.h
- src/util.h.

-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Tue 30 Aug 2016 09:53:12 PM UTC, comment #5: 

hugh - we don't need to have any particular knowledge of the domain, in general. (i myself know next to nothing about bitcoin/digital currency.)  or try to compile (let alone run) the submission.  it's sufficient to check that the licensing and other criteria are ok, which it sounds like they are, taking the list at face value.

our detailed licensing requirements (notices in every file) would only apply to the actual software being developed here, not all the dependent libraries; it doesn't make sense to require modifying those (as long as their overall license is clear), as discussed previously.

if we were evaluating for inclusion in gnu, and not just hosting on savannah, it would be a different story, but fortunately, we're not.

ok?  (i'll be offline most of the rest of the week, so i hope this is enough to go on ...) -k

Karl Berry <karl>
Site Administrator
Mon 29 Aug 2016 11:08:11 PM UTC, comment #4: 

With apologies to Luke for delaying things, I think I'm going to have to come clean and admit that this project looks a bit too complex for me to assess effectively.  Please could someone else on the list take a look?

-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Mon 29 Aug 2016 02:38:15 AM UTC, comment #3: 
Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>
Mon 29 Aug 2016 02:25:33 AM UTC, comment #2: 

Luke, apologies, I made a mistake with my last comment.

To give a start in looking through your tarball, please could you point out the places where you have modified the standard Bitcoin code?

Best wishes


-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Mon 29 Aug 2016 02:01:40 AM UTC, comment #1: 

Hi Luke, thanks for submitting.  The tarball you submitted seems to be empty.  Please could you re-upload?

Best wishes


-X- <hlam>In charge of this item.
Tue 23 Aug 2016 06:21:03 PM UTC, original submission:  

A new project has been registered at Savannah
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves or discards the registration.

Registration Administration

While this item will be useful to track the registration process, approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific Group Administration page, accessible only to site administrators, effectively logged as site administrators (superuser):

Registration Details

  • Name: Bitcoin Knots
  • System Name:  bitcoinknots
  • Type: non-GNU software and documentation
  • License: Expat License (sometime refered to as MIT License)


Bitcoin Knots is enhanced Bitcoin full node + wallet software.

Other Software Required:

boost Boost http://www.boost.org/
qrencode LGPL-2.1 https://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/
miniupnpc BSD-3-clause http://miniupnp.free.fr/
BerkleyDB-4.8 BSD-4-clause https://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/
LevelDB BSD-3-clause https://github.com/google/leveldb
Qt LGPL-3 https://www.qt.io/
protobuf BSD-3-clause https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/
libevent BSD-3-clause http://libevent.org/
libsecp256k1 Expat https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1
univalue Expat https://github.com/jgarzik/univalue
ZeroMQ LGPL-3 http://zeromq.org/

Tarball URL:


Luke Dashjr <lukedashjr>


(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:

No files currently attached


Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found


Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by ineiev (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by karl (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by hlam (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by lukedashjr (Submitted the item)

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.




    Follow 6 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2017-01-31 ineiev StatusWait reply => Cancelled
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed
    2016-09-03 hlam StatusIn Progress => Wait reply
    2016-08-29 hlam StatusWait reply => In Progress
    2016-08-29 hlam StatusNone => Wait reply
        Assigned toNone => hlam

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.5