{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-10-15\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, 15 October 2016 12:11:02 CEST Marco Falke wrote:\n\u003e On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I'd suggest saying that \"Share alike\" is required and \"Attribution\" is\n\u003e \u003e optional.\n\u003e \n\u003e Please note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same\n\u003e time has BY as an option.\n\u003e \n\u003e Generally, I think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors\n\u003e are scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose\n\u003e MIT/BSD or CC-BY.\n\nMy suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to be a \npublic domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else.\n\nI like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses.\nDo you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we \nagree.\nUsing code-specific licenses (including the GPL) for documentation and \nspecifically a specification is a really poor fit and doens't make much sense.\n\n\u003e Other than that I don't think that more restrictive\n\u003e licenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong\n\u003e place to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license).\n\u003e BIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is\n\u003e fine.\n\u003e \n\u003e I think that BIP 2 in its current form (\n\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki\n\u003e @6e47447b ) \nWell, it has this sentence;\n\n\u003e This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and\n\u003e BSD 2-clause license. \n\nWhich is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested we \ndrop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in addition \nto the public domain one.\n\nMarco:\n\u003e looks good and addressed the feedback which was\n\u003e accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move\n\u003e forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks.\n\nThats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license, yet \nyou encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain for \nBIPs... Did you read it?\nIt says;\n «Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus\n  it is inadvisable.» [1]\n\n\nAlso;\nThis list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people keep \nusing the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of the \ncommunity and make sure this has been heard and discussed.\nMoving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the \nBIP process.\n\nI strongly suggest people make very clear any and all changes that are \nproposed and defend each of them with reasons why you want to change things.\n\n\n1) if you write as a rationale \"In some jurisdictions, public domain is not \nrecognised as a legitimate legal action\" then you can at least name those \njurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of \nproof is on the man who wants to change things.\nIt looks fishy when lawyers disagree. See the CC wikipedia page;\n \"public domain: cc0 Freeing content globally without restrictions\"\n\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel"}