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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CD2A47
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A392EE4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66F1738AB226;
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:02:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161015:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::1nWjqPD6pF8FU7=y:al1T/
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161015:tomz@freedommail.ch::YUm3mZi0AW26QkKK:Nm0x
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:01:38 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.21-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; )
References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAK51vgAhpOFQRgnSxrNrP1JyhBZA3dr7mWKYKD15h0xgO6rR5A@mail.gmail.com>
<1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201610151301.39134.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC
autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
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 13:02:13 -0000
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 11:00:35 AM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to be
> a 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
> agree.
BIPs often should include code.
> Well, it has this sentence;
>
> > This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and
> > BSD 2-clause license.
>
> Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested
> we drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in
> addition to the public domain one.
The "real" license in this case is the BSD 2-clause. However, BIP 1 only
allows OPL and public domain, so BIP 2 is available under OPL as well so that
it is acceptable before/until it activates also.
> Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license,
> yet you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain
> for BIPs... Did you read it?
CC0 and public domain are two different things.
> This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people
> keep using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of
> the community and make sure this has been heard and discussed.
> Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the
> BIP process.
Yes, you're right. I'll post to Lightning-dev and libbitcoin's list about
BIP 2. If you're aware of any other Bitcoin development discussion groups,
could you please bring BIP 2 to their attention so it gets wider review?
> 1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not
> recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those
> jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of
> proof is on the man who wants to change things.
As I understand it, presently France and Germany do not recognise public
domain as a possible status. GPL is merely a copyright license, so it should
be valid anywhere copyright laws exist.
Luke
|
