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 BA4A483D for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:51:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A765186 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:51:48 +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-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E80C615EA for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:51:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:51:40 +0200 Message-ID: <2882300.70fluXe1Lh@garp> In-Reply-To: <20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm> 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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:49:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing option. 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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:51:49 -0000 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. 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. Have a nice day!