{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1qspcss06rhl7lwrhzrnv5k7w7er32htkgds2d50802eguajx4p5sp9jjz5","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1qspcss06rhl7lwrhzrnv5k7w7er32htkgds2d50802eguajx4p5sp9jjz5","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-10-15\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I'd suggest saying that \"Share alike\" is required and \"Attribution\" is\n\u003e optional.\n\nPlease note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same\ntime has BY as an option.\n\nGenerally, I think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors\nare scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose\nMIT/BSD or CC-BY. Other than that I don't think that more restrictive\nlicenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong\nplace to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license).\nBIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is\nfine.\n\nI think that BIP 2 in its current form (\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki\n@6e47447b ) looks good and addressed the feedback which was\naccumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move\nforward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks.\n\nMarco"}