📅 Original date posted:2016-09-24
📝 Original message:On Saturday, 24 September 2016 06:36:00 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> * OPL will no longer be an acceptable license. Many in the community feel
> that prohibiting publication is unacceptable for BIPs, and I haven't
> heard any arguments in favour of allowing it.
My suggestion would be that we replace OPL as an allowed license with one
or two Creative Commons licenses. Following the suggestion from the OPL
creators themselves.
According to Wikipedia;
> Open Publication License was created by the Open Content Project in 1999
> as public copyright license for documents. The license was superseded
> in 2003/2007 by the Creative commons licenses.
I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is
optional.
Executive summary; give the user the choice (next to public domain) between
CCO and BY-SA
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Creative_Commons_license#Seven_regularly_used_licenses
Tom [ARCHIVE] /
npub1h3…8z4k5
2023-06-07 17:53:38
in reply to nevent1q…kakc
Author Public Key
npub1h394c0pkdum0jw4rufslt3ur9m9c2ym4x7a0t68spfpjr6zlq3msu8z4k5Published at
2023-06-07 17:53:38Event JSON
{
"id": "35effb726fea48bcf1198150d993beab5159e0ff00864ddd98a39e91b613c291",
"pubkey": "bc4b5c3c366f36f93aa3e261f5c7832ecb85137537baf5e8f00a4321e85f0477",
"created_at": 1686160418,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"959b179057e6ffab9e68b05b4d104b8a2381f74f3fafc3af9b3f33918b58f080",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c45da14419dab00c0965edc8b3da536acf8209ef6899f2bff1399096bf3d3738",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-09-24\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, 24 September 2016 06:36:00 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e * OPL will no longer be an acceptable license. Many in the community feel\n\u003e that prohibiting publication is unacceptable for BIPs, and I haven't\n\u003e heard any arguments in favour of allowing it.\n\nMy suggestion would be that we replace OPL as an allowed license with one \nor two Creative Commons licenses. Following the suggestion from the OPL \ncreators themselves.\nAccording to Wikipedia;\n\n\u003e Open Publication License was created by the Open Content Project in 1999 \n\u003e as public copyright license for documents. The license was superseded\n\u003e in 2003/2007 by the Creative commons licenses.\n\nI'd suggest saying that \"Share alike\" is required and \"Attribution\" is \noptional.\n\nExecutive summary; give the user the choice (next to public domain) between \nCCO and BY-SA\nsee;\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\nCreative_Commons_license#Seven_regularly_used_licenses",
"sig": "f11560545f3e82bab9a733898aa31f52e005d3991f0e16dc1304e99761db141a706bc05818ca663feb23a2672c98ea0fd2e17d678ae5655f4473ef7b87909456"
}