Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework

On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:02:30 CEST Marco Falke wrote: > >> 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework

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 > > wrote: > > My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to > > be a public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework

On Saturday, 15 October 2016 12:11:02 CEST Marco Falke wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is > > optional. > > Please note there is no CC license

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is > optional. Please note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same time has BY as an option. Generally, I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 06:36:00 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > * OPL will no longer be an acceptable license. Many in the community feel > that prohibiting publication is unacceptable for BIPs, and I haven't > heard any arguments in favour of allowing it. My suggestion would