BIP39: add license and copyright section

[jonatack]

These are required for legal use, and also per BIP-2, and they avoid user confusion as seen in #1395 (comment).

Choice of MIT license per BIP author feedback in #1395 (comment).

The license omission was likely an oversight.

BIP-39 predates BIP-2 by 2-3 years. BIP-1 (in force at the time, since superseded by BIP-2) did require a copyright or public domain section.

[jonatack]

cc @prusnak for approval

[prusnak]

ACK

[murchandamus]

Concept ACK, but for a license change, I expect that we need all rights holders to agree. cc: @slush0, @ebfull, @voisine

[kanzure]

is licensing and CLAs addressed in the new bip2 @murchandamus ?

[slush0]

ACK MIT

[jonatack]

Pinging @ebfull and @voisine for approval here.

[murchandamus]

is licensing and CLAs addressed in the new bip2 @murchandamus ?

Just in so far as we have always required an "acceptable license" that permitted others to use the work. My new process BIP draft so far does not propose a CLA.

[jonatack]

Re-pinging @ebfull and @voisine for approval here.

[jonatack]

2 BIP authors have ACKed but 2 others are not responding.

@murchandamus we'd want to ensure this case is covered by BIP3.

[murchandamus]

I don’t think this is a case that we can litigate. The authors have the copyright for this document. As far as I am aware, we do not have a record of them licensing it in any different manner than "all rights reserved", and it seems obvious to me that a subset of them cannot update the license, IANAL, though.

FWIW, BIP 3 asserts:

[prusnak]

@jonatack @murchandamus have you tried contacting them via email?

[murchandamus]

@prusnak: I sent them an email today.

[ebfull]

ACK MIT, sorry for the delay.

[murchandamus]

I did some additional research into this situation. I have come to the understanding that for jointly authored work any of the authors can license the work. Given that we have approval from three authors and BIP 1 already required that any contributions to this repository were placed into public domain or have a copyright statement, it would be hard to argue that BIP 39 was not intended to be licensed compliantly.

Given my updated understanding, I conclude that this is ready to be merged.