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 > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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. > 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. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
