Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:41:36 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAAS2fgQ813Dfo3n9TKvoUMdhs+MGz=UABzRmY5UGJkoLGaFyZA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQ813Dfo3n9TKvoUMdhs+MGz=UABzRmY5UGJkoLGaFyZA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing
 option.
Precedence: list


--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--