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 63BA087A for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:25:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de (postout2.mail.lrz.de [129.187.255.138]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D91ED1 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:25:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3sx0wp1G1jzyVh for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:25:46 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: postout.lrz.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=tum.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tum.de; h= content-type:content-type:subject:subject:message-id:date:date :from:from:references:in-reply-to:received:mime-version:received :received:received; s=postout; t=1476527145; bh=GMjBvpG8q9NIEsxP tXmdBUvXJ6IGqSkc5mkl2OhhC58=; b=ysOmUhQiNuoLRzHfoZxDMq2ieGlcfQZs BnyqEZkHhidm/HOAmXkwlOot1RnrTlP8tN3Q4dMMkWcwzMwhQw/HcLlTOOCFB0q+ 8XONPB87CPNQCpEKwq65LhPLs8l0JpGXkMyo5Z9Me3HUeWLeBqE6zYJUABx3h/h5 AOivSXMKYoU/2iDD6iZfUws01KUWxnixYX6xrBAp1M9JfMD2Y0vzied/GvwUCdXh fQBBTv+TBypRwoUVEgzXLl5KC+G5jWurjdlGLwKQ7uqGXC3MwDGLwDNp77WlnseS 9AJgQGZ8+wjDKuCO8YNMlKbYM/E/BxeDawH+FIyPv/smp4A12sN+ow== X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lrz.de in lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de X-Spam-Score: -2.792 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 20024) with LMTP id 5qq0c38tDi7B for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:25:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3sx0wn1kJyzyVM for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:25:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c78so24112932wme.0 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 03:25:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmhAP2Lowcvp5bMeMQ+8X7Eb9BQf855rLsCBd4uuzk00PHXUZNSuexlEtI9mRN0jmfBr1kwWqyByxE8Tw== X-Received: by 10.28.54.209 with SMTP id y78mr1443257wmh.94.1476527144364; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 03:25:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.1.17 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2024168.qgaqMetGW1@kiwi> References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org> <2024168.qgaqMetGW1@kiwi> From: Marco Falke Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:25:43 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:30:04 +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, 15 Oct 2016 10:25:49 -0000 On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is > optional. Please note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same time has BY as an option. Generally, I think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors are scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose MIT/BSD or CC-BY. Other than that I don't think that more restrictive licenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong place to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license). BIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is fine. I think that BIP 2 in its current form ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki @6e47447b ) looks good and addressed the feedback which was accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks. Marco