From: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:41:57 +0200
Message-ID: <2024168.qgaqMetGW1@kiwi>
In-Reply-To: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org>
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, 24 September 2016 06:36:00 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 
wrote:
> * OPL will no longer be an acceptable license. Many in the community feel
> that prohibiting publication is unacceptable for BIPs, and I haven't
> heard any arguments in favour of allowing it.

My suggestion would be that we replace OPL as an allowed license with one 
or two Creative Commons licenses. Following the suggestion from the OPL 
creators themselves.
According to Wikipedia;

> Open Publication License was created by the Open Content Project in 1999 
> as public copyright license for documents. The license was superseded
> in 2003/2007 by the Creative commons licenses.

I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is 
optional.

Executive summary; give the user the choice (next to public domain) between 
CCO and BY-SA
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Creative_Commons_license#Seven_regularly_used_licenses