Wanted to quickly share with you all that, with your encouragement, I've continued pursuing BTC License in hopes of garnering enough adoption to eventually make it a viable SPDX License List contender.
On a related note. Here is a piece you may enjoy, written by Phil Odence following a conversation we had regarding the license: Can Blockchain and the BTC License Fund Health Insurance? http://blog.blackducksoftware.com/can-blockchain-btc-license-fund-health-insurance I hope you enjoy it. And thanks again for your encouragement. Next stop, OSI. Warm regards, Josh On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:05 PM Josh Habdas <jhab...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks to all of your for your feedback. It's very helpful for me as I > begin navigating these new waters. I will find this rooftop and I will > sing. But I cannot do it alone. And so now I rally. If you can share my > idea with others, I'm open to speaking with anyone I can about the concept > and how it might be improved for the benefit of individual FOSS developers > worldwide. > > Warm regards, > Josh > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:43 PM Brad Edmondson <brad.edmond...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Josh, >> >> I agree with Philippe here (SPDX looks to use "in the field" as a key >> factor in adding a license to the list), but I do in fact think your idea >> of inserting BTC or other crypto addresses in copyright and/or author >> statements is an interesting one. I hope you won't take this result as >> discouragement, but rather a win: most SPDX licenses (and not just ISC) are >> already compatible with your idea! Go forth and be merry, shout it from the >> rooftops, etc.! >> >> I will be interested to see how this goes, as I suspect a non-trivial >> number of FOSS developers like the idea of credit (somewhat similar to git >> "blame," yes?) and a simple, low-txn-cost replacement for begware that >> sometimes accompanies licenses (really, almost frictionless). I wish you >> luck! >> >> Best, >> Brad Edmondson >> >> -- >> Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* >> 512-673-8782 <(512)%20673-8782> | brad.edmond...@gmail.com >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Josh Habdas <jhab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your >>> advice. Thank you all for your time. >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne < >>> pombreda...@nexb.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas <jhab...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX >>>> License List. >>>> > I am but I small Fish in a large pond. >>>> >>>> Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards. >>>> >>>> Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received >>>> adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses >>>> but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]: >>>> >>>> The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and >>>> exceptions >>>> used for open source and other collaborative software. >>>> >>>> The key word here is "commonly".... And this is further developed on >>>> the same page. >>>> If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should >>>> contact the OSI instead. >>>> >>>> > The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple >>>> permissive >>>> > canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto >>>> wallet >>>> > addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article. >>>> > >>>> > Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a >>>> new >>>> > template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way >>>> to use >>>> > it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text, >>>> or can >>>> > this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms? >>>> >>>> A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a >>>> license text. >>>> As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is >>>> not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread. >>>> >>>> I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back >>>> here on your idea. >>>> >>>> So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel >>>> like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new >>>> text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any >>>> adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually >>>> considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having >>>> something different I doubt this would receive much consideration >>>> there too. >>>> >>>> You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively. >>>> So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a >>>> unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list. >>>> There is not much more to say. >>>> >>>> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview >>>> -- >>>> Cordially >>>> Philippe Ombredanne >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Spdx-legal mailing list >>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org >>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
