Discussion:
BIP 2 revival and rework
(too old to reply)
Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
2016-09-24 06:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I've revived BIP 2 (from Deferred Status) and given it some updates. Most
notably, I have reworked it to be a *replacement* for BIP 1 rather than an
addendum.

https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip0002_squash/bip-0002.mediawiki

Please review it. If things go well, hopefully we can get this done by
Christmas. ;)

Other recent changes include:
* 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.
* Accepted Status has been renamed to Proposed. The name "Accepted" seems a
constant source of confusion since it requires only action from the author.
* Non-image auxiliary files are permitted in the bip-XXXX subdirectory. This
was already the norm despite BIP 1.
* Email addresses are now required for authors. The Travis script has been
enforcing this for months now already.
* The Post-History header may be provided as a link instead of a simple date.
A few BIPs were already doing this.
* Markdown format is no longer permitted for BIPs. I don't see the point in
allowing multiple formats, and so far we've been fine with just MediaWiki.
* The Resolution header has been dropped, as it is not applicable to a
decentralised system where no authority exists to make final decisions.

Other changes already in the previous draft of BIP 2:
* An implementation is now required (when applicable) before BIPs can proceed
to Proposed Status.
* BIP Comments are newly introduced.
* The License preamble headers have been added.

Thanks,

Luke
Tom via bitcoin-dev
2016-09-24 09:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 06:36:00 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
* 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;
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
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 The license was superseded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
Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
2016-10-15 10:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tom via bitcoin-dev
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
Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
2016-10-15 11:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tom via bitcoin-dev
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.
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.

I like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses.
Do you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we
agree.
Using code-specific licenses (including the GPL) for documentation and
specifically a specification is a really poor fit and doens't make much sense.
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
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 )
Well, it has this sentence;
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and
BSD 2-clause license.
Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested we
drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in addition
to the public domain one.
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
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.
Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license, yet
you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain for
BIPs... Did you read it?
It says;
«Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus
it is inadvisable.» [1]


Also;
This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people keep
using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of the
community and make sure this has been heard and discussed.
Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the
BIP process.

I strongly suggest people make very clear any and all changes that are
proposed and defend each of them with reasons why you want to change things.


1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not
recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those
jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of
proof is on the man who wants to change things.
It looks fishy when lawyers disagree. See the CC wikipedia page;
"public domain: cc0 Freeing content globally without restrictions"
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
2016-10-15 12:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
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)
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
I like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses.
Do you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we
agree.
Licenses that only require attribution are generally compatible with
each other. I don't think we should pick one and only promote/endorse
this one. Let's just leave the decision to the BIP author.
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Well, it has this sentence;
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and
BSD 2-clause license.
Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested we
drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in addition
to the public domain one.
I am pretty sure this is required to host the current text of BIP 2 in
the repo, as currently BIP 1 still applies and still requires for all
BIPs either OPL or PD, which is one of the reasons I think we should
move forward with BIP 2 or amending BIP 1.
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
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.
Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license, yet
you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain for
BIPs... Did you read it?
It says;
«Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus
it is inadvisable.» [1]
BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
legislations where this is possible. None of the licenses mentioned in
BIP 2 is exclusive, so you can choose as many options as you like. One
of the goals of BIP 2 is to no longer allow PD as the only copyright
option.
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Also;
This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people keep
using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of the
community and make sure this has been heard and discussed.
Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the
BIP process.
I strongly suggest people make very clear any and all changes that are
proposed and defend each of them with reasons why you want to change things.
1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not
recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those
jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of
proof is on the man who wants to change things.
It looks fishy when lawyers disagree. See the CC wikipedia page;
"public domain: cc0 Freeing content globally without restrictions"
Luke is the BIP champion of BIP 2, so please cc him if you have
suggestions on how to improve the process of gathering community
consensus.

Marco
Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
2016-10-15 14:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
legislations where this is possible
It does, actually.
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
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
Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
2016-10-15 15:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
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 think you are misunderstanding what is allowed and what is required...

BIP1: "Each BIP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the
public domain (see this BIP as an example) or licensed under the Open
Publication License"

So BIP1 *requires* PD or OPL but does not forbid other licenses. For
example, you are free to multi license OPL (and additionally: BSD,
MIT, CC0, ...)

BIP2: "Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in
its preamble."

So BIP2 *requires* an acceptable license but does not forbid other
choices. For example, you are free to choose: BSD (and additionally:
PD, CC-BY-SA, WTFPL, BEER, ...)
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
legislations where this is possible
It does, actually.
Huh, I can't find it in the text I read. The text mentions "not
acceptable", but I don't read that as "forbidden".
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
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.
Right. Though, up to now the majority of the BIP authors chose PD as
the only option.

Marco
Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
2016-10-16 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
legislations where this is possible
It does, actually.
Huh, I can't find it in the text I read. The text mentions "not
acceptable", but I don't read that as "forbidden".
You suggest that a person can dual license something under both CC-BY-SA as
well as under public domain.
That means you don't understand copyright,

See, all licenses are based on you having copyright. In contrast; public
domain is not a license, it means a certain text does not have copyright.
Public domain is the lack of copyright.

One text can not at the same time have copyright and not have copyright,
making your assumption impossible.

Hence, with PD not explicitly being allowed, you can't use PD.

Personally I prefer copyleft licenses, so the lack of PD is fine with me. The
lack of a good copyleft we can use in BIPs is what got me involved in this
discussion in the first place.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
2016-10-15 13:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
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.
I like you agree with that part, but I see you added two licenses.
Do you have a good reason to add MIT/BSD to that list? Otherwise I think we
agree.
BIPs often should include code.
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Well, it has this sentence;
Post by Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and
BSD 2-clause license.
Which is a bit odd in light of the initial email from Luke that suggested
we drop the Open Publication License and we use the CC ones instead in
addition to the public domain one.
The "real" license in this case is the BSD 2-clause. However, BIP 1 only
allows OPL and public domain, so BIP 2 is available under OPL as well so that
it is acceptable before/until it activates also.
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
Thats odd, you just stated you like the public domain (aka CC0) license,
yet you encourage the BIP2 that states we can no longer use public domain
for BIPs... Did you read it?
CC0 and public domain are two different things.
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
This list has not seen a lot of traffic, if you want to make sure people
keep using the BIP process, I think you need to reach out to the rest of
the community and make sure this has been heard and discussed.
Moving forward the way it is now will likely deminish the importance of the
BIP process.
Yes, you're right. I'll post to Lightning-dev and libbitcoin's list about
BIP 2. If you're aware of any other Bitcoin development discussion groups,
could you please bring BIP 2 to their attention so it gets wider review?
Post by Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
1) if you write as a rationale "In some jurisdictions, public domain is not
recognised as a legitimate legal action" then you can at least name those
jurisdictions and explain how they *do* support things like GPL. Burden of
proof is on the man who wants to change things.
As I understand it, presently France and Germany do not recognise public
domain as a possible status. GPL is merely a copyright license, so it should
be valid anywhere copyright laws exist.

Luke
Loading...