📅 Original date posted:2016-10-15 📝 Original message:On Saturday, 15 October ...

Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /

npub1mju…xnq7

2023-06-07 17:53:58

in reply to nevent1q…9tkj

📅 Original date posted:2016-10-15
📝 Original message: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
>
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 licensed as permissive as
> possible. Still, I wonder why you chose otherwise with BIP 134.
> (Currently OPL and CC-BY-SA)

OPL was the only allowed option apart from CC0.

I dual licensed it so future acceptance of the CC-BY-SA one may mean someone
can just remove the OPL from the BIP and no futher action or permission is
needed from all the authors.

> BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
> legislations where this is possible

It does, actually.

> One
> of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright
> option.

That's odd as PD was never the only copyright option.

--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel

Author Public Key

npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:53:58

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "aba926e53bfb9403cc40219e0aec73f4e5c43efb6e75f599b7d9d586592c301c", "pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7", "created_at": 1686160438, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "e63cd4ea4ab6e0a5e3f2408def1b797bf5f825b5cac36837367ba8a1c7e449ac", "", "root" ], [ "e", "b5ee90f4255cd691f0496972c7ed1b26bedb7c66a31a25655f9e2df01eb654d3", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "04038841fa1dffefb87710e6ca5bcef647155d764360a6d1e77ab28e7646a869" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-10-15\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, 15 October 2016 14:12:09 CEST Marco Falke wrote:\n\u003e On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e My suggestion (sorry for not explaining it better) was that for BIPS to\n\u003e \u003e be a public domain (aka CC0) and a CC-BY option and nothing else.\n\u003e \n\u003e Indeed, we agree that BIPs should be licensed as permissive as\n\u003e possible. Still, I wonder why you chose otherwise with BIP 134.\n\u003e (Currently OPL and CC-BY-SA)\n\nOPL was the only allowed option apart from CC0.\n\nI dual licensed it so future acceptance of the CC-BY-SA one may mean someone \ncan just remove the OPL from the BIP and no futher action or permission is \nneeded from all the authors.\n\n\u003e BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in\n\u003e legislations where this is possible\n\nIt does, actually.\n\n\u003e One\n\u003e of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright\n\u003e option.\n\nThat's odd as PD was never the only copyright option.\n\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel", "sig": "35581b52c83234bf377dba2d1da1b0b937eed250f8236c4b3c1edeabf75c114742bc40b2dbc1bef1c6a8bacb0ce29fa5020cc95c05b7c3d6f98ee90d60b04615" }