Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D44B6725 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:41:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149078.authsmtp.net (outmail149078.authsmtp.net [62.13.149.78]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BD8243 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:41:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt21.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u8QIfg1S053448; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:41:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u8QIfcrR094492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:41:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2AFF40192; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CA2542005C; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:41:36 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Gregory Maxwell , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: dc5a4587-8418-11e6-829e-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAQUC1AEAgsB AmAbWl1eVFx7Wmo7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUQ0JeEpS RHweWx12fgcIf3ly ZQg2DXUKWEFyclt1 Rk9cCGwHMGF9YGIW BV1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z GA41ejw8IwAXED5S WgYWIF5aa2czW2d0 TBALGzoiVVcIQiIt LhopYnkkOA4VM04/ N0AgX116exgKFgxZ GQcl X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:41:45 -0000 --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:21:16AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev w= rote: > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > "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." >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > Moreover, the project that created this license has recommended people > use creative commons licenses instead since 2007. >=20 > 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. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev ACK 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 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX6WvdAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yrDEH/RS+QhAlWzCHbcEWqGbd+HBo weYIB9BgkHmrSKOtbSKEFqXt84OZhPjbwKGkBROBVaFlS9RM5pZPXEFVguSi5ll0 QSDcvjmSNPnzWI0DR07T1OYF/MaWQoT2OCDt6T3pNCaRKitprRWp22Wvfo1i3GH1 JxjJXsqATMouHhFzvz5/ZmSQO8Y/e7TXI7WjstZMY0EW79nORdnA+19g+Q5kugHT LwsDCacJOeBwORJH/MXO25gOZlqoS7eC7/duTwF/UGV6QeG8v2KhhpsZY8amy/WU C7JbNGClF0ttXum8g7/yAnF/59JdqlphNgv60Ae10YlXOtLuFEsl4su7TGq3I5o= =+//U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--