Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing option.

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- 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 --]