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 45B30C62 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937CA1AD for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id z126so4404455vkd.0 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:21:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=721Kr9xHW9RMJ8Qxn7+snXVj0lEARCp+DWXJDd8JEYA=; b=C4oBR+u5hE5q9LopfXUavan4l+zY2J4uePu4d/6Moczh+jLy05W1O77Mo2oSOlKduU e1QWR/tbToS4AJ6SW6lhLJgMfsVcHEL29QUMxLFH5LBdC5SbocUc/tvlo2zJl2nBEi7V gZN0H9GYg6gbn+VVMwGt7Mzc0TiD2gtacfzwAvgy58uMWU2c19Mn4NhuU0nPd4NBxom5 LX1ztH39eFF7BMwBnUQniLXj/vQwgAXsHTXji/3AXNwaqK6Ai0RmyuQk/BBKL60Dhfny o2n2HVPe0Lua3yaQ5YqK2NQlCUEUESYo06Y8Tb94JcCh2FWKkYXT1V1gx2Vsp1wL38i5 QLjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=721Kr9xHW9RMJ8Qxn7+snXVj0lEARCp+DWXJDd8JEYA=; b=IaygMF1IETUkgYJIJFUYzSUt6LoCL/byeQ6eK1nuj4hBR/uBAgP5NUAiewQRK2pEB8 nfYxKVTKQ7GKH4v7W7mGz+P+cjdcazD7dC5a9irxTsxmU12urFwdXf2H6t76Fokryx2A MsNnPbe/B49fu0q2kQGblyaav8rF9lUtafkNspITYzI0vmq5EOMrlIgmJR+0hq8ndtCq kF1ZP/ASIk2+H3TywuFu+nfYNEEAMts6xQD9j0M7ukHoPijFk2IlQmWLQQFUD438G6H4 z8FOeLl1I3hhCJo13vJQZS7tFbE3uD56t1kb4b+GkRKxZ8+s8Vs8/kBsaCdIlMvRimBo GVnw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rmb1+Vre5oishpTAVz/hC91Rt9L6fwWx9HerQNkZptWpwVB4yVMeTHxX35hVViWjpYK343FxQZ2/gojwA== X-Received: by 10.31.58.140 with SMTP id h134mr787448vka.20.1474676477435; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:21:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.33.145 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:16 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HQfLfY2mDhCpRIGB3d7xZrv_0uw Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [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: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:21:19 -0000 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.