Add note for repository to add new wordlists

[vladimirfomene]

Many wordlists were proposed here, but they were closed with the following note:

For now, the author(s) of BIP 39 have decided not to accept any further word lists into BIP 39 itself, and encourage adding new ones to the WLIPs repo here: https://github.com/p2w34/wlips

I have added the note to the BIP's wiki so that people will know where to open these PRs going forward.

[murchandamus]

Hey @prusnak and @slush0, could you check whether this is still correct today and matches your intention for BIP39 wordlists?

[prusnak]

No. My intention is not to support any wordlists except for the English one to maximize interoperability.

[jonatack]

Thanks @prusnak. IIUC this should therefore be closed, and bip-0039/bip-0039-wordlists.md updated?

[murchandamus]

I’m closing this PR, because one of the authors declined this proposed change to their BIP.

[LecrisUT]

Sorry for messaging randomly on a closed PR, but I do not wish to expose my personal gmail address or register my email address to a public mailing list, I hope you understand.

When packaging tiny-bip39 for Fedora we came across an issue that the original license of the BIP39 word list is not defined here ¹. We are going by the assumption that it is meant to be published under MIT based on python-mnemonic, but could someone clarify this? I don't know who to ping precisely, maybe @prusnak?

Footnotes

1. My understanding is that the license is defined from BIP2 which requires a License field to be populated in the bip document, but this is missing for BIP39 ↩

[prusnak]

When packaging tiny-bip39 for Fedora we came across an issue that the original license of the BIP39 word list is not defined here [^1]. We are going by the assumption that it is meant to be published under MIT based on python-mnemonic, but could someone clarify this? I don't know who to ping precisely, maybe @prusnak?

Correct. MIT License

[jonatack]

When packaging tiny-bip39 for Fedora we came across an issue that the original license of the BIP39 word list is not defined here [^1]. We are going by the assumption that it is meant to be published under MIT based on python-mnemonic, but could someone clarify this? I don't know who to ping precisely, maybe @prusnak?

Correct. MIT License

Thanks @prusnak for the quick response. Would you like to open a pull to add the license to BIP39?

[jonatack]

Correct. MIT License

Thanks @prusnak for the quick response. Would you like to open a pull to add the license to BIP39?

Proposed in #1680.