Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users

On Friday, 14 October 2016 04:51:01 CEST Daniel Robinson via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo. > > Agreed. Also worth noting that it has a potential advantage over > unilateral patent disarmament, analogous to the advantage of copyleft > licenses

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, 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 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

[bitcoin-dev] Some transcripts from Scaling Bitcoin 2016

Previously: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011862.html Here are some talks from Milan: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/fungibility-overview/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/joinmarket/

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