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
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45B30C62
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com
[209.85.213.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937CA1AD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id z126so4404455vkd.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=721Kr9xHW9RMJ8Qxn7+snXVj0lEARCp+DWXJDd8JEYA=;
b=C4oBR+u5hE5q9LopfXUavan4l+zY2J4uePu4d/6Moczh+jLy05W1O77Mo2oSOlKduU
e1QWR/tbToS4AJ6SW6lhLJgMfsVcHEL29QUMxLFH5LBdC5SbocUc/tvlo2zJl2nBEi7V
gZN0H9GYg6gbn+VVMwGt7Mzc0TiD2gtacfzwAvgy58uMWU2c19Mn4NhuU0nPd4NBxom5
LX1ztH39eFF7BMwBnUQniLXj/vQwgAXsHTXji/3AXNwaqK6Ai0RmyuQk/BBKL60Dhfny
o2n2HVPe0Lua3yaQ5YqK2NQlCUEUESYo06Y8Tb94JcCh2FWKkYXT1V1gx2Vsp1wL38i5
QLjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject
:to; bh=721Kr9xHW9RMJ8Qxn7+snXVj0lEARCp+DWXJDd8JEYA=;
b=IaygMF1IETUkgYJIJFUYzSUt6LoCL/byeQ6eK1nuj4hBR/uBAgP5NUAiewQRK2pEB8
nfYxKVTKQ7GKH4v7W7mGz+P+cjdcazD7dC5a9irxTsxmU12urFwdXf2H6t76Fokryx2A
MsNnPbe/B49fu0q2kQGblyaav8rF9lUtafkNspITYzI0vmq5EOMrlIgmJR+0hq8ndtCq
kF1ZP/ASIk2+H3TywuFu+nfYNEEAMts6xQD9j0M7ukHoPijFk2IlQmWLQQFUD438G6H4
z8FOeLl1I3hhCJo13vJQZS7tFbE3uD56t1kb4b+GkRKxZ8+s8Vs8/kBsaCdIlMvRimBo
GVnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rmb1+Vre5oishpTAVz/hC91Rt9L6fwWx9HerQNkZptWpwVB4yVMeTHxX35hVViWjpYK343FxQZ2/gojwA==
X-Received: by 10.31.58.140 with SMTP id h134mr787448vka.20.1474676477435;
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.33.145 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:16 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HQfLfY2mDhCpRIGB3d7xZrv_0uw
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQ813Dfo3n9TKvoUMdhs+MGz=UABzRmY5UGJkoLGaFyZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing option.
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, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:19 -0000
I've proposed a revision to BIP-1 that removes the option to license
the work under the OPL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/446
The OPL contains troublesome terms where the licensor can elect to
prohibit print publication of the work as well as the creation of
modified versions without their approval.
"Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is
prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder."
"Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard
(paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained
from the copyright holder."
Additionally, even without these optional clauses the specific
construction of this licenses' attribution requirements are
restrictive enough that Debian does not consider it acceptable for
works included in their distribution
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html).
I can't find any discussion that indicates anyone involved with the
project was aware of these clauses at the time this text was added...
and I believe they are strongly incompatible with having a
transparent, public, collaborative process for the development of
standard for interoperablity. I certainly wasn't aware of it, and
would have argued against it if I was.
Moreover, the project that created this license has recommended people
use creative commons licenses instead since 2007.
The only BIPs that have availed themselves of this are BIP145 (which
is dual licensed under the permissive 2-clause BSD, which I wouldn't
object to adding as an option-- and which doesn't active the
objectionable clauses) and the recently assigned BIP134.
|
