From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Tom <tomz@freedommail•ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing option.
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:17:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160927191707.GA22136@fedora-21-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2882300.70fluXe1Lh@garp>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]
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.
>
> Documentation and code can have different licenses, the sole existence of
> various documentation licenses attests to that point.
> Shipping your docs under a separate licence has never been a problem before,
> 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, although
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
> 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 BIP to
> be dual-licensed. Now its also available under a Creative Commons license.
Thanks, CC-BY-SA is a perfectly good license for that purpose.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-27 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-24 0:21 Gregory Maxwell
2016-09-26 18:41 ` Peter Todd
2016-09-27 9:51 ` Tom
2016-09-27 19:17 ` Peter Todd [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160927191707.GA22136@fedora-21-dvm \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tomz@freedommail$(echo .)ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox