diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index b413d75c..c5f44761 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -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?