From 85a248f68eb9e179fcb1e538087761338905aaf7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 10:38:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bip3: Fix SPDX id of Open Publication License --- bip-0003.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index 47b8fd5b..541ceb55 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should when no other license is granted: * PD: Released into the public domain -* OPL: [Open Publication License, version 1.0](http://opencontent.org/openpub/) +* OPUBL-1.0: [Open Publication License, version 1.0](http://opencontent.org/openpub/) ## BIP Editors @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ feedback, and helpful comments. * PD: 42 * CC0-1.0: 23 * BSD-3-Clause: 19 - * OPL: 5 + * OPUBL-1.0: 5 * CC-BY-SA-4.0: 4 * FSFAP: 3 * MIT: 2 @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ feedback, and helpful comments. and therefore CC-BY-SA-4.0 (and the GPL-flavors) is no longer considered acceptable for new BIPs. As mentioned above, existing BIPs will retain their original licensing. - Why are OPL and Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? + Why are Open Publication License and Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? * Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus it is inadvisable. - * The OPL is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications. + * The Open Publication License is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications.