From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CD2A47 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:02:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A392EE4 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66F1738AB226; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:02:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:161015:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::1nWjqPD6pF8FU7=y:al1T/ X-Hashcash: 1:25:161015:tomz@freedommail.ch::YUm3mZi0AW26QkKK:Nm0x From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Tom Zander Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:01:38 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.21-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; ) References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org> <1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry> In-Reply-To: <1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201610151301.39134.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:02:13 -0000 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