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
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
|
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 0A7FD1BB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:01:12 +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 1C878D5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:01:10 +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 A9EC96197A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:00:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:00:35 +0200
Message-ID: <1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAK51vgAhpOFQRgnSxrNrP1JyhBZA3dr7mWKYKD15h0xgO6rR5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org> <2024168.qgaqMetGW1@kiwi>
<CAK51vgAhpOFQRgnSxrNrP1JyhBZA3dr7mWKYKD15h0xgO6rR5A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:30:56 +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 11:01:12 -0000
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 12:11:02 CEST Marco Falke wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is
> > optional.
>=20
> Please note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same
> time has BY as an option.
>=20
> Generally, I think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors
> are scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose
> MIT/BSD or CC-BY.
My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to be =
a=20
public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else.
I like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses.
Do you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we=
=20
agree.
Using code-specific licenses (including the GPL) for documentation and=20
specifically a specification is a really poor fit and doens't make much sen=
se.
> Other than that I don't think that more restrictive
> licenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong
> place to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license).
> BIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is
> fine.
>=20
> I think that BIP 2 in its current form (
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
> @6e47447b )=20
Well, it has this sentence;
> This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and
> BSD 2-clause license.=20
Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested w=
e=20
drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in additio=
n=20
to the public domain one.
Marco:
> looks good and addressed the feedback which was
> accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move
> forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks.
Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license, ye=
t=20
you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain for=20
BIPs... Did you read it?
It says;
=ABPublic domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus
it is inadvisable.=BB [1]
Also;
This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people ke=
ep=20
using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of the=20
community and make sure this has been heard and discussed.
Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the=
=20
BIP process.
I strongly suggest people make very clear any and all changes that are=20
proposed and defend each of them with reasons why you want to change things.
1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not=
=20
recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those=20
jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of=
=20
proof is on the man who wants to change things.
It looks fishy when lawyers disagree. See the CC wikipedia page;
"public domain: cc0 Freeing content globally without restrictions"
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
