Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:17:07 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160927191707.GA22136@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAAS2fgQ813Dfo3n9TKvoUMdhs+MGz=UABzRmY5UGJkoLGaFyZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm> <2882300.70fluXe1Lh@garp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2882300.70fluXe1Lh@garp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing
 option.
Precedence: list


--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:51:40AM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Monday 26 Sep 2016 14:41:36 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Note how the OPL is significantly more restrictive than the Bitcoin Core
> > license; not good if we can't ship documentation with the code.
>=20
> Documentation and code can have different licenses, the sole existence of=
=20
> various documentation licenses attests to that point.
> Shipping your docs under a separate licence has never been a problem befo=
re,=20
> so you don't have to worry that you can't ship documentation with code.

The issue isn't that the licenses are different, it's that the OPL is
significantly more restrictive (with the additional clauses that you opted
into).

Indeed, using a different license for documentation is common advise, altho=
ugh
if the documentation also includes example code you may want to dual-license
the documentation with a code-oriented license as well if the documentation
license isn't maximally permissive.

> That said, I wrote my suggestion in reply to Luke's BIP2 revival which is=
 a=20
> more formal suggestion of a solution. Maybe you can ACK that one instead?
>
> Last, in preparation of acceptance of BIP2 I changed the licence of my BI=
P to=20
> be dual-licensed.  Now its also available under a Creative Commons licens=
e.

Thanks, CC-BY-SA is a perfectly good license for that purpose.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX6sWvAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yXYwH/AzmOVCRCAdmtQ3RWQF9zAJt
ZeaYJ714IHa47LDa/Nw38E51eJTBwhm6oeHHyRqCByX4AFTln5Z7HUYjushMKSzD
qU+u06GQ0xArl2QC7fmlT8evv2BFuaCK239+IaN8pzCSLKUyZ8vEVZu7NF0AGdIg
hC4+rcCDzSRqCJGtaQ1nMeY97XKkjfpNR/Y8og+Z1mr7calbNu5nokQczzgR6gA3
eKDjrXExDIYTAQW22t7ZYoigUWSHt0P1fYhJrBUt2/1DnIm79klNqs+YMtbCFkLt
U0U9uO8xl4aJpGNOKxHjK4s96qbuVVpKOpIDqYzhfJ00EssJqipFafLeGsY2Gx4=
=WsL1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z--