Addressing Licensing regarding Repository, Blog Postings, Materials

[ABISprotocol]

Hello, This issue has been opened to address licensing with respect to this repository, blog postings which may emanate from it based on the repository's content, and 'materials' such as, but not limited to, the guides which we have created (or posted to this repository for ongoing collaboration) and which we will create in this repository, which could be used by others in any number of ways. This is an issue which is open for discussion, please feel free to weigh in. The following is provided as a basis for this discussion and as resources you can use in studying the matter further: http://choosealicense.com/ (General guide for choosing a license) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html (GNU compatibles / noncompatibles) https://github.com/blog/1530-choosing-an-open-source-license

The following are submitted as suggestions: GPLv3 / GNU Affero GPL version 3 for repository, CC0 (a Creative Commons license referenced within the GNU compatibles) as guideline for posts appearing elsewhere, flexibility afforded for publishers' preference (note that in Bitcoin Magazine online, the content merely appears with "© 2014 Coin Publishing Ltd" at the bottom, though I imagine that this practice would not keep us from releasing our content to Bitcoin Magazine or other places with a request that the CC0 notation ("released under CC0") be included at the base of a post).

The CC0 statement of purpose reads in part, "Certain owners wish to permanently relinquish those rights to a Work for the purpose of contributing to a commons of creative, cultural and scientific works ("Commons") that the public can reliably and without fear of later claims of infringement build upon, modify, incorporate in other works, reuse and redistribute as freely as possible in any form whatsoever and for any purposes, including without limitation commercial purposes. These owners may contribute to the Commons to promote the ideal of a free culture and the further production of creative, cultural and scientific works, or to gain reputation or greater distribution for their Work in part through the use and efforts of others.

For these and/or other purposes and motivations, and without any expectation of additional consideration or compensation, the person associating CC0 with a Work (the "Affirmer"), to the extent that he or she is an owner of Copyright and Related Rights in the Work, voluntarily elects to apply CC0 to the Work and publicly distribute the Work under its terms, with knowledge of his or her Copyright and Related Rights in the Work and the meaning and intended legal effect of CC0 on those rights."

Open for discussion.

[nikosbentenitis]

I agree with the recommendations.

Thank you Colin

[johnrmeese]

I, as well, agree with these recommendations.

[David-R-Allen]

I agree with the recommendations.

[pmlaw]

I would strongly recommend NOT using GPL/GNU quasi-open source licenses for any projects you are working on.

We have used the MIT License (which is a truly open source license) in the past, including for our bylaws. I'd start there.

I'd also add that the Bitcoin source-code is also distributed under the MIT license.

[pmlaw]

Link to bylaws license: https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/blob/master/Bylaws/LICENSE.md

[johnrmeese]

Thank you, Patrick, for pointing that out. I had just ran across the licensing on the bylaws and noticed the difference. Can you provide a quick explanation on the difference between the varying licenses? You are the foundation's general counsel, so I'm sure you understand this topic better than most of us.

[willybot]

I am in favor of making all content produced by our committee as open as possible.

On Jul 16, 2014, at 2:43 PM, johnrmeese notifications@github.com wrote:

Thank you, Patrick, for pointing that out. I had just ran across the licensing on the bylaws and noticed the difference. Can you provide a quick explanation on the difference between the varying licenses? You are the foundation's general counsel, so I'm sure you understand this topic better than most of us.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[ABISprotocol]

@pmlaw Thanks for your suggestion of the MIT license for the Ed. Committee repository. I'm assuming that you are referring to the Expat License, which is also referred to as the MIT License. I've looked up the MIT license on the GNU list of compatibles / incompatibles. MIT shows up as compatible with GPLv3 and GNU Affero GPL version 3 and CC0, as shown at: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html From the text of the MIT (Expat) License, the following terms are shown in part / evidenced: "Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000 Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

This is the same language shown at https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/blob/master/Bylaws/LICENSE.md (Bylaws license).

It's not binding upon others to have the same license where different repositories are associated with the Foundation, unless the Board has adopted a resolution or other decision expressing that any repository shall have the same license as the Bylaws repository has. In any event, I don't believe such a decision has ever been made, and such a decision would be clearly problematic for speech and other issues.

In any event, I am not settled on a particular license, but so far I have not seen any reasoning presented as to why one should avoid GNU / GPL. Regardless of what the Education Committee may settle on, my position is that the licenses should be compatible with GNU, and it's my understanding that the following licenses that have been mentioned in this thread are compatible with one another, namely and to wit: GPLv3 GNU Affero GPL version 3 CC0 MIT / Expat

I am getting the sense from the comments so far that the Committee would like to see CC0 applied to posts of the Committee wherever possible (with flexibility afforded in light of publishers' preference depending on the forum where we are published).

I think the matter of what to apply to the repository is unresolved for the moment and I would like to see further comments on that, for example, comparing GNU Affero GPL version 3 to MIT / Expat and weighing which it should be. In any event, I believe that if the Committee does end up settling on MIT / Expat for the repository, I think that MIT is also compatible with CC0, so I don't see any compatibility issues, but someone please double check that and please correct me if I am wrong.

[pmlaw]

@willpangman GNU/GPL is not open, and not truly open source. The fact that we need to have a lengthy discussion about what licenses are "compatible" is indicative of that.

@ABISprotocol Why would we make GNU/GPL compatibility the litmus test for licensing any repo? No one is suggesting that the Foundation has a formal rule on licensing, although we probably should.

@johnrmeese GNU/GPL is usually seen as a Trojan Horse in that it forces any derivative work to be distributed under the same license. Because of this restriction most people avoid any software that has GNU/GPL liability and you often see this explicitly stated in commercial software development contracts. It's also not truly "open" because it imposes a burden on subsequent distribution.

[johnrmeese]

Thank you for the explanation, @pmlaw. Is the MIT / Expat license one that we can apply to both GitHub content and blog posts or other text?

[pmlaw]

@johnrmeese Sure you can, I modified it a bit for the bylaws since traditionally the MIT is a software license. CC is marketed to content producers but is a bit more restrictive (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) requiring, for instance, attribution.

[ABISprotocol]

@pmlaw I wish to disassociate myself from any formal position the Foundation may take on licensing. You stated earlier that the Foundation should take a formal position on licensing. I vehemently disagree and find your position on that matter is inimical to free speech and choice generally. Please consider taking that matter up in a distinct issue in the Bylaws repository if you are so interested, and I will oppose it further there.

Regarding the question of whether the MIT / Expat license would be better than GPLv3 or GNU Affero GPL version 3 for the repository of the Education Committee, I agree with @pmlaw that there is value in the MIT license, but I think it is best left to the members of the Committee as to which one should be chosen. I'm not going to get religious about it. If the members of the Committee want MIT / Expat, ok. If they want GPLv3 / GNU Affero GPL version 3, ok. The only concern I have, personally, is ensuring that what we do doesn't bind our hands and that it "plays well with others" (hence the compatibility discussion). Cheers

[pmlaw]

@ABISprotocol If your goal is "play well with others" than GNU/GPL is clearly a terrible choice. It's not about being religious, just read the licenses: MIT is more open than GNU/GPL. GNU/GPL imposes your view of the world on every downstream user.

Of course the committee is free to make whatever decision it likes, I was asked for my opinion and I offered it.

[pmlaw]

I should add that no one, not even Linux kernel uses GPLv3. FWIW

[ABISprotocol]

@pmlaw Thank you for your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from the various members of the Education Committee on this point now that you have made your point clear. I'd rather that the various members of the Ed Committee decide, as I have no particular inclination to favor either MIT or GNU/GPL, but I don't think you (Patrick) should impose a particular point of view on this matter. I'd like to hear a final call on it from those who've been most active in the repository. Based on the commits and contributors who have contributed the most to the repository (and who have joined the Education Committee through its contact page), those persons include the following: @sressler @johnrmeese @mdhaze @cesgon @David-R-Allen @FredianoCampione @gehlm @nikosbentenitis @willpangman @btcfoundationedcom (I've excluded myself, since I've already weighed in, and as previously stated, I don't have a preference for whether the repository should be MIT, GPLv3, or GNU Affero GPL version 3)

[johnrmeese]

I'm not interested in a license that forces similar openness on future users, or demands attribution. I think the most open license possible would be best. From what has been presented so far, it sounds like the MIT license is our best bet. I recommend we go with that.

[sressler]

Don't ya just love when things get heated and exciting! ;-) Personally I'd prefer the creative commons license...specifically http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ which let's anyone do anything as long as attribution is given. In general the CC licenses seem more useful appropriate to "content" as opposed to the MIT license which is probably best for "source code". For the education committee we are producing "content" and the CC license seems better.

My only desire is that the license let's other take and use the content for whatever they want, as long as they attribute the source. So whatever enables that works for me. Sandy

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:50 PM, ABIS notifications@github.com wrote:

@pmlaw https://github.com/pmlaw Thank you for your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from the various members of the Education Committee on this point now that you have made your point clear. I'd rather that the various members of the Ed Committee decide, as I have no particular inclination to favor either MIT or GNU/GPL, but I don't think you (Patrick) should impose a particular point of view on this matter. I'd like to hear a final call on it from those who've been most active in the repository. Based on the commits and contributors who have contributed the most to the repository (and who have joined the Education Committee through its contact page), those persons include the following: @sressler https://github.com/sressler @johnrmeese https://github.com/johnrmeese @mdhaze https://github.com/mdhaze @cesgon https://github.com/cesgon @David-R-Allen https://github.com/David-R-Allen @FredianoCampione https://github.com/FredianoCampione @gehlm https://github.com/gehlm @nikosbentenitis https://github.com/nikosbentenitis @willpangman https://github.com/willpangman @btcfoundationedcom https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom (I've excluded myself, since I've already weighed in, and as previously stated, I don't have a preference for whether the repository should be MIT, GPLv3, or GNU Affero GPL version 3)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/23#issuecomment-49250189 .

Sandy Ressler

http://www.sandyressler.com @sressler

http://www.bitcoininplainenglish.com @btcplainenglish

sressler at acm.org

[mdhaze]

I have no interest in licensing issues. Sorry, can't help you with that one.

Mike Hayes

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:50 PM, ABIS notifications@github.com wrote:

@pmlaw https://github.com/pmlaw Thank you for your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from the various members of the Education Committee on this point now that you have made your point clear. I'd rather that the various members of the Ed Committee decide, as I have no particular inclination to favor either MIT or GNU/GPL, but I don't think you (Patrick) should impose a particular point of view on this matter. I'd like to hear a final call on it from those who've been most active in the repository. Based on the commits and contributors who have contributed the most to the repository (and who have joined the Education Committee through its contact page), those persons include the following: @sressler https://github.com/sressler @johnrmeese https://github.com/johnrmeese @mdhaze https://github.com/mdhaze @cesgon https://github.com/cesgon @David-R-Allen https://github.com/David-R-Allen @FredianoCampione https://github.com/FredianoCampione @gehlm https://github.com/gehlm @nikosbentenitis https://github.com/nikosbentenitis @willpangman https://github.com/willpangman @btcfoundationedcom https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom (I've excluded myself, since I've already weighed in, and as previously stated, I don't have a preference for whether the repository should be MIT, GPLv3, or GNU Affero GPL version 3)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/23#issuecomment-49250189 .

[nikosbentenitis]

Thank you all for weighing in on the subject.

At this point, each member of the education committee should make an informed decision and submit their opinion on the following Doodle poll. Please write your full name to the left of your choice.

The poll will be open until Saturday, July 19, 11 am Eastern (5 pm Central European time).

[nikosbentenitis]

The poll for the license of our materials is now closed. See the votes here. All of those who voted chose the MIT license for the materials. I modified the MIT license based on the license used in the Foundation's bylaws and posted it here.