On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:51:40AM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Monday 26 Sep 2016 14:41:36 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Note how the OPL is significantly more restrictive than the Bitcoin Core
> > license; not good if we can't ship documentation with the code.
>
>
On Monday 26 Sep 2016 14:41:36 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Note how the OPL is significantly more restrictive than the Bitcoin Core
> license; not good if we can't ship documentation with the code.
Documentation and code can have different licenses, the sole existence of
various
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:21:16AM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I've proposed a revision to BIP-1 that removes the option to license
> the work under the OPL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/446
>
> The OPL contains troublesome terms where the licensor can elect to
>
I've proposed a revision to BIP-1 that removes the option to license
the work under the OPL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/446
The OPL contains troublesome terms where the licensor can elect to
prohibit print publication of the work as well as the creation of
modified versions without
