mirrors/bitcoin-bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2024-11-19 09:50:06 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge commit '54018e9'

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Luke Dashjr 2016-03-08 18:13:16 +00:00
commit 03888cc96d
1 changed files with 49 additions and 16 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

65
bip-0002.mediawiki
View File

@ -133,31 +133,60 @@ Will BIP comments be censored or limited to particular participants/"experts"?
==BIP licensing==
New BIPs may be accepted with the following licenses:
===Specification===
New BIPs may be accepted with the following licenses. Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. The License header in the preamble must be placed after the Created header. Each license must be referenced by their respecitve abbreviation given below.
For example, a preamble might include the following License header:
License: BSD-2-Clause
GNU-All-Permissive
In this case, the BIP text is fully licensed under both the OSI-approved BSD 2-clause 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.
It is also possible to license source code differently from the BIP text. A optional License-Code header is placed after the License header. Again, each license must be referenced by their respective abbreviation given below.
For example, a preamble specifying the optional License-Code header might look like:
License: BSD-2-Clause
GNU-All-Permissive
License-Code: GPL-2.0+
In this case, the code in the BIP is not available under the BSD or All-Permissive licenses, but only under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer.
If the code were to be available under *only* version 2 exactly, the "+" symbol should be removed from the license abbreviation.
For a later version (eg, GPL 3.0), you would increase the version number (and retain or remove the "+" depending on intent).
License-Code: GPL-2.0 # This refers to GPL v2.0 *only*, no later license versions are acceptable.
License-Code: GPL-2.0+ # This refers to GPL v2.0 *or later*.
License-Code: GPL-3.0 # This refers to GPL v3.0 *only*, no later license versions are acceptable.
License-Code: GPL-3.0+ # This refers to GPL v3.0 *or later*.
In the event that the text or code is not available under common license terms, the list should instead be replaced with the single term "Complex", and full details provided in the Copyright section of the BIP.
====Recommended licenses====
* [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license]
* [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license]
* [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal]
* [http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html GNU All-Permissive License]
* BSD-2-Clause: [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause OSI-approved BSD 2-clause license]
* BSD-3-Clause: [https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause OSI-approved BSD 3-clause license]
* CC0-1.0: [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal]
* GNU-All-Permissive: [http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html GNU All-Permissive License]
In addition, it is recommended that literal code included in the BIP be dual-licensed under the same license terms as the project it modifies. For example, literal code intended for Bitcoin Core would ideally be dual-licensed under the MIT license terms as well as one of the above with the rest of the BIP text.
====Not recommended, but acceptable licenses====
* [http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Apache License, version 2.0]
* [http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Boost Software License, version 1.0]
* [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International]
* [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International]
* [https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Expat/MIT/X11 license]
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), version 3 or newer]
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html GNU Free Documentation License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer]
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1 or newer]
* [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0]
* Apache-2.0: [http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Apache License, version 2.0]
* BSL-1.0: [http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Boost Software License, version 1.0]
* CC-BY-4.0: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International]
* CC-BY-SA-4.0: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International]
* MIT: [https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Expat/MIT/X11 license]
* AGPL-3.0+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), version 3 or newer]
* FDL-1.3: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3]
* GPL-2.0+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer]
* LGPL-2.1+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1 or newer]
* OPL: [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0]
Additionally, PD is used to express that the work is placed in the public domain.
This may not be used for new BIPs, and is only defined for use by BIPs predating acceptance of this BIP.
===Rationale===
@ -172,6 +201,10 @@ Why are there software licenses included?
* Some BIPs, especially consensus layer, may include literal code in the BIP itself which may not be available under the exact license terms of the BIP.
* Despite this, not all software licenses would be acceptable for content included in BIPs.
Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs?
* In some jurisdictions, public domain is not recognised as a legitimate legal action, leaving the BIP simply copyrighted with no redistribution or modification allowed at all.
==See Also==
* [[bip-0001.mediawiki|BIP 1: BIP Purpose and Guidelines]]