bitcoin/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-07-21 12:58:14 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

bip3: Editorial cleanup of the license lists

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Tim Ruffing 2025-07-09 10:54:51 +02:00
parent 7aa54dd696
commit 88d29188c6
1 changed files with 12 additions and 12 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

24
bip-0003.md
View File

@ -436,14 +436,14 @@ acceptable license.
In other words, a new BIP must specify an SPDX License Expression that is either "L" or equivalent to "L OR E" for some
acceptable license L from the following list and another SPDX License Expression E.
* BSD-2-Clause: [OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause)
* BSD-3-Clause: [OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause)
* BSD-2-Clause: [BSD 2-Clause License](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause)
* BSD-3-Clause: [BSD 3-Clause License](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause)
* CC0-1.0: [Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
* FSFAP: [FSF All Permissive License](https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html)
* CC-BY-4.0: [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
* MIT: [Expat/MIT/X11 license](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
* Apache-2.0: [Apache License, version 2.0](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
* BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License, version 1.0](http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
* MIT: [Expat/MIT/X11 License](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
* Apache-2.0: [Apache License 2.0](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
* BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License 1.0](https://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
#### Not Acceptable Licenses
@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms
However, BIPs predating this proposal were accepted under other terms, and should use one the following identifiers.
* LicenseRef-PD: Placed into the public domain
* OPUBL-1.0: [Open Publication License, version 1.0](http://opencontent.org/openpub/)
* OPUBL-1.0: [Open Publication License 1.0](https://opencontent.org/openpub/)
## BIP Editors
@ -747,15 +747,15 @@ feedback, and helpful comments.
The following previously acceptable licenses were retained per request of reviewers, even though they have so far
never been used in the BIPs process:
* Apache-2.0: [Apache License, version 2.0](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
* BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License, version 1.0](http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
* Apache-2.0: [Apache License 2.0](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
* BSL-1.0: [Boost Software License 1.0](https://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
The following previously acceptable licenses have never been used in the BIPs Process and have been dropped:
* AGPL-3.0+: [GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), version 3 or newer](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)
* FDL-1.3: [GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html)
* GPL-2.0+: [GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html)
* LGPL-2.1+: [GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1 or newer](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html)
* AGPL-3.0+: [GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) 3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)
* FDL-1.3: [GNU Free Documentation License 1.3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html)
* GPL-2.0+: [GNU General Public License (GPL) 2 or newer](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html)
* LGPL-2.1+: [GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 or newer](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html)
Why are software licenses included?