From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org, Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail•ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:01:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201610151301.39134.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-15 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-24 6:36 Luke Dashjr
2016-09-24 9:41 ` Tom
2016-10-15 10:25 ` Marco Falke
[not found] ` <CAK51vgAhpOFQRgnSxrNrP1JyhBZA3dr7mWKYKD15h0xgO6rR5A@mail.gmail.com>
2016-10-15 11:00 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-15 12:12 ` Marco Falke
2016-10-15 14:21 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-15 15:02 ` Marco Falke
2016-10-16 14:56 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-15 13:01 ` Luke Dashjr [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=201610151301.39134.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(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