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 0A59EB57 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:42:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7186D1C3 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:42:01 +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 mx04.mykolab.com (mx04.mykolab.com [10.20.7.102]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9E9E2423F for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:41:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:41:57 +0200 Message-ID: <2024168.qgaqMetGW1@kiwi> In-Reply-To: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:35:49 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:42:02 -0000 On Saturday, 24 September 2016 06:36:00 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > * OPL will no longer be an acceptable license. Many in the community feel > that prohibiting publication is unacceptable for BIPs, and I haven't > heard any arguments in favour of allowing it. My suggestion would be that we replace OPL as an allowed license with one or two Creative Commons licenses. Following the suggestion from the OPL creators themselves. According to Wikipedia; > Open Publication License was created by the Open Content Project in 1999 > as public copyright license for documents. The license was superseded > in 2003/2007 by the Creative commons licenses. I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is optional. Executive summary; give the user the choice (next to public domain) between CCO and BY-SA see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Creative_Commons_license#Seven_regularly_used_licenses