Closed cornelius closed 5 years ago
BIPs each mention their license (mostly public domain or dual license BSD-2 + CC0-1.0, e.g. see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0310.mediawiki).
Should we add something like this to UIPs and ADRs too? After all also the individual code files carry a copyright comment/header.
BIPs each mention their license (mostly public domain or dual license BSD-2 + CC0-1.0, e.g. see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0310.mediawiki).
Should we add something like this to UIPs and ADRs too? After all also the individual code files carry a copyright comment/header.
We have it for newer UIPs. It's in the UIP template as well. For ADRs and older UIPs it's missing. I think it certainly makes sense to do it for the UIPs. I will prepare a separate pull request for that.
For ADRs I think it's less important because this is more targeted towards the team and less likely to be out out of context. Still would be good to have it, I suppose, to be clear. Let me create an issue and we can tackle that later.
BIPs each mention their license (mostly public domain or dual license BSD-2 + CC0-1.0, e.g. see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0310.mediawiki).
Should we add something like this to UIPs and ADRs too? After all also the individual code files carry a copyright comment/header.
@scravy I think yes, but then we should have a policy on what licenses we accept and which ones not, right?
My other doubt is if this is the better place to start this discussion, well, rephrasing it: I'm not sure where's the best place to start this discussion.
Also remove BIP activation reference as this information is now tracked in https://github.com/dtr-org/unit-e/blob/master/doc/bips.md.
Signed-off-by: Cornelius Schumacher cornelius@thirdhash.com