From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing option.
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:41:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQ813Dfo3n9TKvoUMdhs+MGz=UABzRmY5UGJkoLGaFyZA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2225 bytes --]
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:21:16AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I've proposed a revision to BIP-1 that removes the option to license
> the work under the OPL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/446
>
> The OPL contains troublesome terms where the licensor can elect to
> prohibit print publication of the work as well as the creation of
> modified versions without their approval.
>
> "Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is
> prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder."
> "Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard
> (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained
> from the copyright holder."
>
> Additionally, even without these optional clauses the specific
> construction of this licenses' attribution requirements are
> restrictive enough that Debian does not consider it acceptable for
> works included in their distribution
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html).
>
> I can't find any discussion that indicates anyone involved with the
> project was aware of these clauses at the time this text was added...
> and I believe they are strongly incompatible with having a
> transparent, public, collaborative process for the development of
> standard for interoperablity. I certainly wasn't aware of it, and
> would have argued against it if I was.
>
> Moreover, the project that created this license has recommended people
> use creative commons licenses instead since 2007.
>
> The only BIPs that have availed themselves of this are BIP145 (which
> is dual licensed under the permissive 2-clause BSD, which I wouldn't
> object to adding as an option-- and which doesn't active the
> objectionable clauses) and the recently assigned BIP134.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
ACK
Note how the OPL is significantly more restrictive than the Bitcoin Core
license; not good if we can't ship documentation with the code.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-26 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-24 0:21 [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing option Gregory Maxwell
2016-09-26 18:41 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2016-09-27 9:51 ` Tom
2016-09-27 19:17 ` Peter Todd
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=20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm \
--to=pete@petertodd.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=greg@xiph.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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