1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58C913EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:17:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.148.100])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA1919D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:17:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt24.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u8RJHDag082595;
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:17:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u8RJH9Un067553
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:17:10 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8418A4012B;
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:13:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 1D98B2015C; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:17:07 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160927191707.GA22136@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAAS2fgQ813Dfo3n9TKvoUMdhs+MGz=UABzRmY5UGJkoLGaFyZA@mail.gmail.com>
<20160926184136.GA15752@fedora-21-dvm> <2882300.70fluXe1Lh@garp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2882300.70fluXe1Lh@garp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: fd830abb-84e6-11e6-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAUUC1AEAgsB AmAbWVReUVp7WGI7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQ0Ke2QI Y0AeVB53cgYIfnx3 ZQg0CnhYXBUoJ1t1
RhtSCGwHMGF9YGIW BV1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXED5S WgYWIF5aa2czW2d0 TBALGzoiVVcIQiIt
LhopYnkkOA4VM04/ N0AgX116exgKFgxZ GQcl
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP-1 change removing OPL licensing
option.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:17:17 -0000
--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.
>=20
> Documentation and code can have different licenses, the sole existence of=
=20
> various documentation licenses attests to that point.
> Shipping your docs under a separate licence has never been a problem befo=
re,=20
> so you don't have to worry that you can't ship documentation with code.
The issue isn't that the licenses are different, it's that the OPL is
significantly more restrictive (with the additional clauses that you opted
into).
Indeed, using a different license for documentation is common advise, altho=
ugh
if the documentation also includes example code you may want to dual-license
the documentation with a code-oriented license as well if the documentation
license isn't maximally permissive.
> That said, I wrote my suggestion in reply to Luke's BIP2 revival which is=
a=20
> more formal suggestion of a solution. Maybe you can ACK that one instead?
>
> Last, in preparation of acceptance of BIP2 I changed the licence of my BI=
P to=20
> be dual-licensed. Now its also available under a Creative Commons licens=
e.
Thanks, CC-BY-SA is a perfectly good license for that purpose.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX6sWvAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yXYwH/AzmOVCRCAdmtQ3RWQF9zAJt
ZeaYJ714IHa47LDa/Nw38E51eJTBwhm6oeHHyRqCByX4AFTln5Z7HUYjushMKSzD
qU+u06GQ0xArl2QC7fmlT8evv2BFuaCK239+IaN8pzCSLKUyZ8vEVZu7NF0AGdIg
hC4+rcCDzSRqCJGtaQ1nMeY97XKkjfpNR/Y8og+Z1mr7calbNu5nokQczzgR6gA3
eKDjrXExDIYTAQW22t7ZYoigUWSHt0P1fYhJrBUt2/1DnIm79klNqs+YMtbCFkLt
U0U9uO8xl4aJpGNOKxHjK4s96qbuVVpKOpIDqYzhfJ00EssJqipFafLeGsY2Gx4=
=WsL1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z--
|
