From 764409cb37d22c9b017d60c96aa296dc6ab4bf90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:51:01 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bip2: Use correct SPDX license ids in the text See https://spdx.org/licenses/ --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index b95ace15..556176b7 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -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?