From 7aa54dd6965c9fd455816490f846ae6ede2df988 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:44:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bip3: Change License example to CC0-1.0 OR MIT The actual reason why I suggest this is that I think that's a great default choice for a new BIP, so it's a perfect example. CC0-1.0 is a great liberal choice for the BIP document (and test vectors etc.), and MIT is the common choice for code in our ecosystem. Putting both BIP and code under the "OR" avoids any confusion about which part is licensed under which terms and also avoids any hassle when reorganizing, e.g., when moving code out of the BIP Markdown file to a separate file etc. But I don't want this PR to recommend a license, so let me sell this change as an editorial change to an example, which is warranted because the MIT is much more known than FSFAP, in particular in this ecosystem. --- bip-0003.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index aaf38fd3..b413d75c 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -395,10 +395,10 @@ Copyright section, possibly providing further details on licensing. For example, a preamble might include the following License header: - License: CC0-1.0 OR FSFAP + License: CC0-1.0 OR MIT In this case, the BIP (including all auxiliary files) is made available under the terms of both Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal as well as the -FSF All Permissive License, and anyone may modify and redistribute it provided they comply with the terms of +MIT License, and anyone may modify and redistribute it provided they comply with the terms of *either* license, at their option. In other words, the license list is an "OR choice", not an "AND also" requirement. See the [SPDX documentation](https://spdx.dev/ids/) and the [SPDX License List](https://spdx.org/licenses/) for further details.