bitcoin/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2026-01-19 15:03:08 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

bip2: Use correct SPDX license ids in the text

Browse Source 
See https://spdx.org/licenses/
This commit is contained in:
Tim Ruffing 2025-10-22 18:51:01 +02:00 committed by Murch
parent 7c3fab6fa7
commit 764409cb37
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 7BA035CA5B901713
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
bip-0002.mediawiki
View File

@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be listed in the License and
* BSD-2-Clause: [https://opensource.org/license/BSD-2-Clause OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license]
* BSD-3-Clause: [https://opensource.org/license/BSD-3-Clause OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license]
* CC0-1.0: [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal]
* GNU-All-Permissive: [https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html GNU All-Permissive License]
* FSFAP: [https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html FSF All Permissive License]
In addition, it is recommended that literal code included in the BIP be dual-licensed under the same license terms as the project it modifies. For example, literal code intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be dual-licensed under the MIT license terms as well as one of the above with the rest of the BIP text.
@ -381,16 +381,16 @@ In addition, it is recommended that literal code included in the BIP be dual-lic
All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal unless a later BIP extends this one to add them.
However, BIPs predating the acceptance of this BIP were allowed under other terms, and should use these abbreviation when no other license is granted:
* OPL: [https://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0]
* OPUBL-1.0: [https://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0]
* PD: Released into the public domain
===Rationale===
BIP 1 allowed the Open Publication License or releasing into the public domain; was this insufficient?
* The OPL is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications.
* Many are unfamiliar with the OPL terms, and may just prefer to use the public domain rather than license under uncertain terms.
* The OPL license terms allowed for the author to prevent publication and derived works, which was widely considered inappropriate for Bitcoin standards.
* The OPUBL-1.0 is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications.
* Many are unfamiliar with the OPUBL-1.0 terms, and may just prefer to use the public domain rather than license under uncertain terms.
* The OPUBL-1.0 license terms allowed for the author to prevent publication and derived works, which was widely considered inappropriate for Bitcoin standards.
* Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus it is inadvisable.
Why are there software licenses included?