From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A7FD1BB for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:01:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C878D5 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:01:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161]) by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9EC96197A for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:00:49 +0200 (CEST) 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" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:30:56 +0000 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 11:01:12 -0000 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