BIP3: drop optional License Code header #1904

pull jonatack wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from jonatack:2025-07-remove-License-Code-from-BIP3 changing 1 files +14 −23
  1. jonatack commented at 9:10 pm on July 25, 2025: member

    based on @real-or-random’s #1892 (comment).

    Also a couple of minor BIP3 touch-ups.

  2. jonatack assigned jonatack on Jul 25, 2025
  3. jonatack assigned murchandamus on Jul 25, 2025
  4. jonatack unassigned jonatack on Jul 25, 2025
  5. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jul 25, 2025
  6. jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Jul 25, 2025
  7. murchandamus commented at 11:43 pm on July 25, 2025: contributor
    Thanks, looks good. Could you please also mention in the Backwards Compatibility section under Preamble that the License-Code has been sunset?
  8. in bip-0003.md:399 in 8871d28b81 outdated
    395@@ -397,29 +396,18 @@ For example, a preamble might include the following License header:
    396 
    397     License: CC0-1.0 OR MIT
    398 
    399-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
    400+In this case, the BIP (including all auxiliary files) is made available under the terms of both Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal as well as the
    


    real-or-random commented at 6:09 am on July 28, 2025:

    Thanks, what I wrote was a mixup of “Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal” (what SPDX calls it) and “CC0 1.0 Universal” (this is the “official” title used by Creative Commons).

    I’d slightly prefer the latter, mostly because it’s more common. But, using either is certainly better than my mixup.


    jonatack commented at 5:35 pm on July 28, 2025:
    Updated to the latter.
  9. in bip-0003.md:410 in 8871d28b81 outdated
    420-    License:         CC0-1.0
    421-    License-Code:    MIT
    422-
    423-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
    424-License.
    425+A few BIP2-era BIPs may have a License-Code header; in such cases please refer to BIP2.
    


    real-or-random commented at 6:19 am on July 28, 2025:
    0A few BIP2-era BIPs have a License-Code header; in such cases please refer to BIP2.
    

    (We’re sure about this.)

    If you drop “source code” as suggested above, then it may be a good idea to explain “License-Code”:

    0A few BIP2-era BIPs have a License-Code header indicating the license terms applicable to auxiliary source code files; in such cases please refer to BIP2.
    

    jonatack commented at 5:35 pm on July 28, 2025:
    Done
  10. in bip-0003.md:404 in 8871d28b81 outdated
    404 
    405-It is also possible to specify that source code is licensed differently by including the optional License-Code header
    406-after the License header. Again, the licensing terms must be specified using an SPDX License Expression.
    407-
    408-Each auxiliary source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in
    409+If different from those specified in the License header, each auxiliary source code file or source directory should specify the license under which it is made available as is common in
    


    real-or-random commented at 6:23 am on July 28, 2025:
    1. If you want to express that each file with a different license should specify it explicitly, then “where” or “wherever” is more precise than “if”.

    2. I also suggest dropping “source code”. There may be other files such as images.

    3. This says “license” but it could more than one license. I suggest “license terms” or just “terms”. I’m not sure if it’s the greatest term (no pun intended!) but we use it above to refer to “some AND/OR combination of licenses”, so it’s consistent.

    Combined:

    0Wherever different from those specified in the License header, an auxiliary file or directory should specify the license terms under which it is made available as is common in
    

    Is it worth adding a clarifying sentence like: “Such exceptions should also be mentioned in the Copyright section.”?


    jonatack commented at 5:35 pm on July 28, 2025:
    Took all suggestions (thanks!)
  11. in bip-0003.md:150 in 8871d28b81 outdated
    145@@ -147,7 +146,7 @@ appear in the following order. Headers marked with "\*" are optional. All other
    146   Authors header. See the [BIP Ownership](#bip-ownership) section above.
    147 * Status — The stage of the workflow of the proposal. See the [Workflow](#workflow) section below.
    148 * Type — See the [BIP Types](#bip-types) section below for a description of the three BIP types.
    149-* License and License-Code — These headers specify SPDX License Expressions describing the licenses under which the
    150+* License — The License header specifies SPDX License Expressions describing the licenses under which the
    151   BIP and corresponding code are available. See the [BIP Licensing](#bip-licensing) section below.
    


    real-or-random commented at 6:25 am on July 28, 2025:
    I suggest: “under which the BIP and its auxiliary files are available.”

    jonatack commented at 5:34 pm on July 28, 2025:
    Done
  12. real-or-random commented at 6:29 am on July 28, 2025: contributor
    Sorry for being slow. This was on my list, thanks for taking care of it!
  13. jonatack force-pushed on Jul 28, 2025
  14. jonatack force-pushed on Jul 28, 2025
  15. jonatack commented at 5:49 pm on July 28, 2025: member
    Updated to take all the review feedback (thanks!).
  16. in bip-0003.md:546 in fd16929ac6 outdated
    542@@ -555,6 +543,7 @@ mentioned in the [Changelog](#changelog) section.
    543 - The "Post-History" header is replaced with the "Discussion" header.
    544 - The optional "Version" header is introduced.
    545 - The "Discussions-To" header is dropped as it has never been used in any BIP.
    546+- The "License-Code" header has been sunset, as it was used by only five BIPs (98, 116, 117, 330, 340) and created more ambiguity than clarity.
    


    murchandamus commented at 7:28 pm on July 28, 2025:
    Just noticed that this says License-Code was used by five BIPs, but below line 734, it says that License-Code was used four times. I must have overlooked BIP 340. But since line 546 is just being introduced here, perhaps it could be made consistent.

    jonatack commented at 10:54 pm on July 28, 2025:
    Good catch, done.
  17. murchandamus commented at 7:31 pm on July 28, 2025: contributor
    Thanks, good improvements.
  18. BIP3: drop optional License Code header
    Co-authored-by: Tim Ruffing <crypto@timruffing.de>
    Co-authored-by: Murch <murch@murch.one>
    12dc0e04a2
  19. BIP3: refer to CC0 1.0 Universal
    per https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.en
    
    and add a missing word
    
    Co-authored-by: Tim Ruffing <crypto@timruffing.de>
    6f2f4aa233
  20. jonatack force-pushed on Jul 28, 2025
  21. murchandamus commented at 0:54 am on July 29, 2025: contributor
    LGTM
  22. real-or-random approved
  23. real-or-random commented at 6:35 am on July 29, 2025: contributor
    ACK 6f2f4aa23353e75baa53cfb735bf1c9b8d635f60

github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bips. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2025-07-29 12:10 UTC

This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me