1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D93AB94D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:21:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 415769C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:21:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 605476193D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:21:43 +0200 (CEST)
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"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:29:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:21:47 -0000
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
|
