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"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
Precedence: list

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