rich1.0npub1qspcss06rhl7lwrhzrnv5k7w7er32htkgds2d50802eguajx4p5sp9jjz5https://nostr.ae/npub1qspcss06rhl7lwrhzrnv5k7w7er32htkgds2d50802eguajx4p5sp9jjz5njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-10-15 📝 Original message:On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors are scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose MIT/BSD or CC-BY. Other than that I don't think that more restrictive licenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong place to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license). BIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is fine. I think that BIP 2 in its current form ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki @6e47447b ) looks good and addressed the feedback which was accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks. Marco