From c3b6691284a893cf1eeda3016bedfbe6b6c5c8bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 08:59:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 01/10] bip3: Switch to SPDX License Expressions --- bip-0003.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index 5f096386ad..dc2c7adcbd 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -120,8 +120,8 @@ appear in the following order. Headers marked with "\*" are optional. All other Status: Type: Created: - License: -* License-Code: + License: +* License-Code: * Discussion: * Version: * Requires: @@ -147,10 +147,8 @@ appear in the following order. Headers marked with "\*" are optional. All other Authors header. See the [BIP Ownership](#bip-ownership) section above. * Status — The stage of the workflow of the proposal. See the [Workflow](#workflow) section below. * Type — See the [BIP Types](#bip-types) section below for a description of the three BIP types. -* License and License-Code — These headers list SPDX License Identifier(s) of the acceptable licenses under which the - BIP and corresponding code are available. See the [BIP Licensing](#bip-licensing) section below for a description of - the Licenses and their SPDX License Identifiers. If there are multiple acceptable licenses, each should be on a - separate line. +* License and License-Code — These headers specify SPDX License Expressions describing the acceptable licenses under which the + BIP and corresponding code are available. See the [BIP Licensing](#bip-licensing) section below. * Discussion — The Discussion header points the audience to relevant discussions of the BIP, e.g., the mailing list thread in which the idea for the BIP was discussed, a thread where a new version of the BIP was presented, or relevant discussion threads on other platforms. Entries take the format "yyyy-mm-dd: URL", e.g., `2009-01-09: @@ -391,22 +389,21 @@ innovate on a level playing field. Only freely licensed contributions are accept ### Specification -Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. Licenses must be referenced per their -respective [SPDX License identifier](https://spdx.org/licenses). New BIPs may be accepted with the licenses described -below. +Each new BIP must specify in two ways under which license terms it is made available. First, it must specify an [SPDX +License Expression](https://spdx.dev/ids/) in the License field in the preamble. Second, it must include a matching +Copyright section, possibly providing further details on licensing. For example, a preamble might include the following License header: - License: CC0-1.0 - GNU-All-Permissive + License: CC0-1.0 OR GNU-All-Permissive In this case, the BIP text is fully licensed under both the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license as well as the GNU All-Permissive License, and anyone may modify and redistribute the text provided they comply with the terms of -*either* license. In other words, the license list is an "OR choice", not an "AND also" requirement. +*either* license. 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. It is also possible to license source code differently from the BIP text by including the optional License-Code header -after the License header. Again, each license must be referenced by their respective SPDX License identifier shown -below. +after the License header. Again, the licensing terms must be specified using an SPDX License Expression. Each source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in software (e.g., with a license header or a LICENSE/COPYING file). It is recommended to make any test vectors available @@ -423,10 +420,6 @@ For example, a preamble specifying the optional License-Code header might look l In this case, the code in the BIP is not available under CC0-1.0, but is only available under the terms of the MIT License. -BIPs are not required to be *exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under unacceptable -licenses *in addition to* at least one acceptable license. In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be listed -in the License and License-Code headers. - It is recommended that BIPs that include literal code be licensed under the same license terms as the project it modifies. For example, literal code intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be licensed (or dual-licensed) under the MIT license terms. @@ -435,6 +428,14 @@ In all cases, details of the licensing terms must be provided in the Copyright s #### Acceptable Licenses[^licenses] +Each new BIP must be made available under at least one acceptable license as listed below. BIPs are not required to be +*exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under unacceptable licenses *in addition to* at +least one acceptable license. In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be specified in the License and +License-Code headers. + +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) * CC0-1.0: [Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) @@ -447,7 +448,7 @@ In all cases, details of the licensing terms must be provided in the Copyright s #### Not Acceptable Licenses All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. -However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should use these abbreviations +However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should use these identifiers when no other license is granted: * PD: Released into the public domain From e5748c9997198263494f377ba7b3abb9ede51b12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 10:06:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 02/10] bip3: Fix SPDX id of FSF/GNU All Permissive --- bip-0003.md | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index dc2c7adcbd..47b8fd5b6a 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 GNU-All-Permissive + License: CC0-1.0 OR FSFAP In this case, the BIP text is fully licensed under both the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license as well as the -GNU All-Permissive License, and anyone may modify and redistribute the text provided they comply with the terms of +FSF All Permissive License, and anyone may modify and redistribute the text provided they comply with the terms of *either* license. 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. @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ after the License header. Again, the licensing terms must be specified using an Each source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in software (e.g., with a license header or a LICENSE/COPYING file). It is recommended to make any test vectors available -under CC0-1.0 or GNU-All-Permissive in addition to any other licenses to allow anyone to copy test vectors into their +under CC0-1.0 or FSFAP in addition to any other licenses to allow anyone to copy test vectors into their implementations without introducing license hindrances. Licenses listed in the License-Code header apply to all source directories, source code files, and test vectors provided with the BIP except those where a LICENSE file in a directory or the file header states otherwise. @@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ acceptable license L from the following list and another SPDX License Expression * 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) * CC0-1.0: [Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) -* GNU-All-Permissive: [GNU All-Permissive License](http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html) +* 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) @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ feedback, and helpful comments. * BSD-3-Clause: 19 * OPL: 5 * CC-BY-SA-4.0: 4 - * GNU-All-Permissive: 3 + * FSFAP: 3 * MIT: 2 * CC-BY-4.0: 1 From 85a248f68eb9e179fcb1e538087761338905aaf7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 10:38:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 03/10] 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 47b8fd5b6a..541ceb5523 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. From 33d45d7f74e0a6f6a5a5529102f193c6d6dda857 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 10:39:35 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 04/10] bip3: Use user-defined LicenseRef-PD instead of PD SPDX doesn't have an official identifier for "public domain", at least not for the simple "This document is placed into the public domain" declarations used in some BIPs, see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files for the rationale provided by their legal team. The rationale is sound, but It's possible to create "user-defined" identifiers of the form LicenseRef-X. This is a good idea here to make sure that all SPDX expression will be formally valid. And in our case, all "PD" BIPs match the following pseudo regex, so there's not much potential for confusion: "This (document|BIP|work|proposal) is (hereby)? (placed)? in the public domain." So it makes sense to keep using a single identifier for all of these. --- bip-0003.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index 541ceb5523..32dcb801f8 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should use these identifiers when no other license is granted: -* PD: Released into the public domain +* LicenseRef-PD: Placed into the public domain * OPUBL-1.0: [Open Publication License, version 1.0](http://opencontent.org/openpub/) ## BIP Editors From d01e94118891e88b533fd2dfeff61b42df853dc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:02:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 05/10] bip3: Don't call CC0 a license That's a bit of legal nitpicking, sorry. CC0 contains something like a public domain dedication along with a fallback license, so it's neither entirely. Some call it a "legal instrument". I prefer not calling it anything. --- bip-0003.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index 32dcb801f8..1a42a7cdca 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ For example, a preamble might include the following License header: License: CC0-1.0 OR FSFAP -In this case, the BIP text is fully licensed under both the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license as well as the +In this case, the BIP text 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 the text provided they comply with the terms of *either* license. 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. From 3de6ed6dc0f3fa1617c876686b62f92eb149c9af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:12:49 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 06/10] bip3: Don't require omitting unacceptable licenses I think that requirement is not helpful. I don't think hat including additional licenses will be overwhelming to the reader. If anything, it will obfuscates the actual licensing conditions. (Anyway, this should be super rare.) --- bip-0003.md | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index 1a42a7cdca..4c7785a760 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ appear in the following order. Headers marked with "\*" are optional. All other Authors header. See the [BIP Ownership](#bip-ownership) section above. * Status — The stage of the workflow of the proposal. See the [Workflow](#workflow) section below. * Type — See the [BIP Types](#bip-types) section below for a description of the three BIP types. -* License and License-Code — These headers specify SPDX License Expressions describing the acceptable licenses under which the +* License and License-Code — These headers specify SPDX License Expressions describing the licenses under which the BIP and corresponding code are available. See the [BIP Licensing](#bip-licensing) section below. * Discussion — The Discussion header points the audience to relevant discussions of the BIP, e.g., the mailing list thread in which the idea for the BIP was discussed, a thread where a new version of the BIP was presented, or relevant @@ -430,8 +430,7 @@ In all cases, details of the licensing terms must be provided in the Copyright s Each new BIP must be made available under at least one acceptable license as listed below. BIPs are not required to be *exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under unacceptable licenses *in addition to* at -least one acceptable license. In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be specified in the License and -License-Code headers. +least one 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. @@ -448,8 +447,7 @@ acceptable license L from the following list and another SPDX License Expression #### Not Acceptable Licenses All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. -However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should use these identifiers -when no other license is granted: +However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should use these identifiers: * LicenseRef-PD: Placed into the public domain * OPUBL-1.0: [Open Publication License, version 1.0](http://opencontent.org/openpub/) From e1d72f024396e7c128aff3d754868a972ae3e38e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:24:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 07/10] bip3: Recommend SPDX-License-Identifier comments --- bip-0003.md | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index 4c7785a760..ab8293fc7d 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -406,10 +406,11 @@ It is also possible to license source code differently from the BIP text by incl after the License header. Again, the licensing terms must be specified using an SPDX License Expression. Each source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in -software (e.g., with a license header or a LICENSE/COPYING file). It is recommended to make any test vectors available +software (e.g., with a [`SPDX-License-Identifier: ` comment](https://spdx.dev/ids/), +with a license header or a LICENSE/COPYING file). It is recommended to make any test vectors available under CC0-1.0 or FSFAP in addition to any other licenses to allow anyone to copy test vectors into their -implementations without introducing license hindrances. Licenses listed in the License-Code header apply to all source -directories, source code files, and test vectors provided with the BIP except those where a LICENSE file in a directory +implementations without introducing license hindrances. Licenses listed in the License-Code header apply to all source directories, +source code files, and test vectors provided with the BIP except those where a LICENSE file in a directory or the file header states otherwise. For example, a preamble specifying the optional License-Code header might look like: From 0cc4d26e675392b49b32f6b95b75f937978a12dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:37:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 08/10] bip3: Editorial changes in "BIP Licensing" --- bip-0003.md | 26 +++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index ab8293fc7d..aaf38fd361 100644 --- a/bip-0003.md +++ b/bip-0003.md @@ -397,17 +397,17 @@ For example, a preamble might include the following License header: License: CC0-1.0 OR FSFAP -In this case, the BIP text 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 the text provided they comply with the terms of -*either* license. In other words, the license list is an "OR choice", not an "AND also" requirement. See the [SPDX +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 +*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. -It is also possible to license source code differently from the BIP text by including the optional License-Code header +It is also possible to specify that source code is licensed differently by including the optional License-Code header after the License header. Again, the licensing terms must be specified using an SPDX License Expression. -Each source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in +Each auxiliary source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in software (e.g., with a [`SPDX-License-Identifier: ` comment](https://spdx.dev/ids/), -with a license header or a LICENSE/COPYING file). It is recommended to make any test vectors available +a license header, or a LICENSE/COPYING file). It is recommended to make any test vectors available under CC0-1.0 or FSFAP in addition to any other licenses to allow anyone to copy test vectors into their implementations without introducing license hindrances. Licenses listed in the License-Code header apply to all source directories, source code files, and test vectors provided with the BIP except those where a LICENSE file in a directory @@ -418,20 +418,20 @@ For example, a preamble specifying the optional License-Code header might look l License: CC0-1.0 License-Code: MIT -In this case, the code in the BIP is not available under CC0-1.0, but is only available under the terms of the MIT +In this case, the source code in the BIP is not available under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, but is only available under the MIT License. -It is recommended that BIPs that include literal code be licensed under the same license terms as the project it -modifies. For example, literal code intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be licensed (or dual-licensed) under the MIT -license terms. +It is recommended that source code included in a BIP (whether within the text or in auxiliary files) be licensed under the same license terms as the project it +is proposed to modify, if any. For example, changes intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be licensed (also) under the MIT +License. In all cases, details of the licensing terms must be provided in the Copyright section of the BIP. #### Acceptable Licenses[^licenses] Each new BIP must be made available under at least one acceptable license as listed below. BIPs are not required to be -*exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under unacceptable licenses *in addition to* at -least one acceptable license. +*exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under other licenses *in addition to* at least one +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. @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ acceptable license L from the following list and another SPDX License Expression #### Not Acceptable Licenses All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. -However, BIPs predating this proposal were allowed under other terms, and should use these identifiers: +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/) From 7aa54dd6965c9fd455816490f846ae6ede2df988 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:44:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 09/10] 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 aaf38fd361..b413d75c12 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. From 88d29188c62dfafc94ac92b5f59d310a20bcef3d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Ruffing Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 10:54:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] bip3: Editorial cleanup of the license lists --- bip-0003.md | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0003.md b/bip-0003.md index b413d75c12..c5f4476115 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?