On Saturday, 15 October 2016 14:12:09 CEST Marco Falke wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> <email@example.com> 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 dual licensed it so future acceptance of the CC-BY-SA one may mean someone
can just remove the OPL from the BIP and no futher action or permission is
needed from all the authors.
> BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
> legislations where this is possible
It does, actually.
> of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright
That's odd as PD was never the only copyright option.
bitcoin-dev mailing list