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 EAC022C for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:02:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from postout1.mail.lrz.de (postout1.mail.lrz.de [129.187.255.137]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ABC684 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lxmhs51.srv.lrz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postout1.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3sx74J1QcWzyWr for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:02:40 +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=1476543759; bh=RTjFt1Ncj9X26mvd m6fbIFu74H5HdlmYSbh6e0rY8kc=; b=vutRG+L0Ffve42Kg9rfv6Tr73NAzj4lG t83Qy+znq9o4X6KgE0nRZZzzLwPNeLQRcGLYaauAZzoTm8cE3dVhETQW/sHNSDlH sm85Qos/X0OY4nd3j/PQsP1734eyU5uDmWQjEGCb1+spGkY9v4XhBS/ejLCbu0si KxxCMdN8Mzw6Hi39kwktyTZRre51aXBQxDxlxT65brIpHI4mQjHUP7xnm7vwMEYC m0GrZd+mMRWo4rxnHdcPCfaRgNPOOMEoAYgNlihUMtlg+eueQbdm9EaKWZ2AKtis qcOKCi/PXaCiM/1K5g1PfbSKp6cxCSIz8TPMpioU7seYgsU9zCSTDg== X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lrz.de in lxmhs51.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 postout1.mail.lrz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by lxmhs51.srv.lrz.de (lxmhs51.srv.lrz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 20024) with LMTP id tb7blAjgk0Ec for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:02:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postout1.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3sx7474zLfzyWd for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:02:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id d128so31973576wmf.1 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:02:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rm7iQHj0Jjqat7dP38uwQjxCLOvFPGkdKT5MV2pzOUrrkAxcRDpbm1jPls83VbSWApLv9ctKH+bPwxnMA== X-Received: by 10.194.118.198 with SMTP id ko6mr5756848wjb.215.1476543750738; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:02:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.1.17 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:02:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1866359.UpcIIOnrOv@strawberry> References: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org> <1574488.v0vhHDvJj4@strawberry> <1866359.UpcIIOnrOv@strawberry> From: Marco Falke Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:02:30 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Tom Zander , 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 15:45:51 +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 15:02:43 -0000 On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, 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. >> >> Indeed, we agree that BIPs should be licensed as permissive as >> possible. Still, I wonder why you chose otherwise with BIP 134. >> (Currently OPL and CC-BY-SA) > > OPL was the only allowed option apart from CC0. I think you are misunderstanding what is allowed and what is required... BIP1: "Each BIP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the public domain (see this BIP as an example) or licensed under the Open Publication License" So BIP1 *requires* PD or OPL but does not forbid other licenses. For example, you are free to multi license OPL (and additionally: BSD, MIT, CC0, ...) BIP2: "Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble." So BIP2 *requires* an acceptable license but does not forbid other choices. For example, you are free to choose: BSD (and additionally: PD, CC-BY-SA, WTFPL, BEER, ...) >> BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in >> legislations where this is possible > > It does, actually. Huh, I can't find it in the text I read. The text mentions "not acceptable", but I don't read that as "forbidden". > >> One >> of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright >> option. > > That's odd as PD was never the only copyright option. Right. Though, up to now the majority of the BIP authors chose PD as the only option. Marco