From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:21:41 +0200
Message-ID: <1866359.UpcIIOnrOv@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAK51vgAyuW+832F7+O-ZB9pusp=si-u_gATgTJbyEXnrb08Xqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org>
	<1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry>
	<CAK51vgAyuW+832F7+O-ZB9pusp=si-u_gATgTJbyEXnrb08Xqg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
Precedence: list

On Saturday, 15 October 2016 14:12:09 CEST Marco Falke wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to
> > be a public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else.
> 
> Indeed, we agree that BIPs should be licensed as permissive as
> possible. Still, I wonder why you chose otherwise with BIP 134.
> (Currently OPL and CC-BY-SA)

OPL was the only allowed option apart from CC0.

I dual licensed it so future acceptance of the CC-BY-SA one may mean someone 
can just remove the OPL from the BIP and no futher action or permission is 
needed from all the authors.

> BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
> legislations where this is possible

It does, actually.

> One
> of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright
> option.

That's odd as PD was never the only copyright option.

-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel