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. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
