Ethereum: Why was the MIT license chosen for Bitcoin?

Ethereum Development and Licensing: A Critical Analysis

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published the original Bitcoin whitepaper, outlining a decentralized digital currency that would revolutionize the way we think about money. Since then, the project has undergone significant transformations with various implementations and updates to the underlying technology. One aspect that sets Bitcoin apart from other cryptocurrencies is its licensing structure: it was not originally licensed under the open-source MIT License.

A Critical Look at Licensing

At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive that a project with such ambitious goals would adopt an opaque licensing model. However, this decision stems from a deliberate decision by Satoshi Nakamoto and the Bitcoin community to maintain control over the network’s code base and ensure its longevity. By not using an open source license like the MIT or GPL (General Public License), the creators wanted to:

• Preserve Secrecy

  : By keeping the codebase closed, the developers avoided the potential security risks associated with publicly disclosing sensitive information.

• Ensure Scalability: Open source licenses often require significant development and maintenance efforts. By reviewing the code, the community can focus on improving network performance rather than addressing licensing issues.

• Preserve Intellectual Property: The MIT License is proprietary and exclusive to the Bitcoin project. This ensures that any improvements or updates to the protocol remain under the control of the creators.

The Rise of Ethereum

Fast forward to 2015, when Vitalik Buterin introduced the Ethereum project, a decentralized platform on top of the Bitcoin network. While originally designed as an extension of the existing Bitcoin codebase, Ethereum’s development and subsequent forks have led to significant changes in its architecture and licensing strategy.

Ethereum: A New Licensing Paradigm

In 2018, Vitalik Buterin released a new license for Ethereum that is derived from the MIT License. This decision marked a fundamental shift in the approach to the project, as it provided an additional level of control over the development and deployment of the network. The new licensing structure allows developers to:

• Increase security: By maintaining secrecy around the codebase, the community can focus on improving the overall security of the platform.

• Encourage innovation: With more control over their work, developers can experiment with new features and ideas without fear of patent or intellectual property disputes.

• Ensure Compliance: The new licensing terms ensure that any contributions or modifications made to Ethereum comply with existing patents and intellectual property laws.

Conclusion

Choosing the MIT License for Bitcoin was a deliberate decision that prioritized control, confidentiality, scalability, and intellectual property protection. While it may seem unusual at first glance, this approach has enabled the project’s continued growth and success. As Ethereum continues to evolve and expand its ecosystem, it will be interesting to see how the licensing structure remains in place and adapts to new requirements.

By understanding the underlying motivations behind the initial decision, we can better appreciate the complexity of developing decentralized technologies and the importance of careful consideration when choosing a licensing model for open source projects.