On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
