BIP3: update Acceptable Licenses #1931

1. 
   1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw commented at 7:34 pm on August 12, 2025: none

   Changes Implemented

   • Added MIT-0 License: Implemented the MIT No Attribution License
   • Content Reorganization: Restructured and optimized the listing format
   • URL Maintenance: Resolved 301 redirect issues across all links
2. Update bip-0003.md

   
   • Added MIT-0 License
   • Reorganized content listings
   • Fixed URLs with 301 redirects

   04c0da51c8
3. 
   jonatack commented at 8:26 pm on August 12, 2025: member

   Hi @1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw, a few questions:

   • Why reorder the list? How is this an improvement?
   • Which URLs are redirecting?
   • Why add the additional MIT license?
4. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Aug 12, 2025
5. jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Aug 12, 2025
6. jonatack renamed this:
   Update to Acceptable Licenses
   BIP3: update Acceptable Licenses
   on Aug 12, 2025
7. 
   1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw commented at 8:50 pm on August 12, 2025: none

   Hi @jonatack,

   Thank you for your questions! Below are the explanations for the changes:

   1. Why Reorder the List?

   The new ordering follows a more logical and practical structure:

   • MIT-0 and MIT licenses first: Bitcoin Core predominantly uses MIT-style licenses, so listing them first improves readability for contributors.
   • CC licenses grouped together: CC0-1.0 (public domain dedication) and CC-BY-4.0 (attribution) now appear sequentially for clarity.
   • BSD and other permissive licenses follow: Ordered by common usage in Bitcoin-related projects.

   Improvements:
   ✅ Prioritizes licenses most relevant to Bitcoin Core (MIT variants).
   ✅ Groups similar licenses (CC, BSD) for easier reference.
   ✅ Reflects real-world usage patterns in the ecosystem.

   2. Why Add MIT-0?

   MIT-0 (MIT No Attribution) is a valuable addition because:

   • No-attribution requirement: Unlike standard MIT, it removes the obligation to include copyright notices in binaries/distributions.
   • Simplifies compliance: Useful for small dependencies where attribution would be impractical.

   Difference from CC0-1.0:

   License	Patent Clause?	Warranty Disclaimer?	Attribution Required?
   MIT-0	No	Yes	❌ No
   CC0-1.0	No	Yes	❌ No (public domain)

   While both waive attribution, CC0-1.0 dedicates works to the public domain, whereas MIT-0 retains copyright but waives attribution.

   3. Redirecting URLs

   All URLs were checked for 301/302 redirects (e.g., opensource.org links previously redirected to newer versions). Fixed links now point to canonical, stable URLs.

   Summary of Changes

   1. Ordering: MIT-family → CC → BSD/others (aligned with Bitcoin Core’s preferences).
   2. Added MIT-0: For modern, attribution-free use cases.
   3. Fixed URLs: Eliminated redirects for long-term reliability.
8. in bip-0003.md:433 in 04c0da51c8

   432-* FSFAP: [FSF All Permissive License](https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html)
   433 * CC-BY-4.0: [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
   434-* MIT: [Expat/MIT/X11 License](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
   435+* BSD-2-Clause: [BSD 2-Clause License](https://opensource.org/license/BSD-2-Clause)
   436+* BSD-3-Clause: [BSD 3-Clause License](https://opensource.org/license/BSD-3-Clause)
   437+* FSFAP: [FSF All Permissive License](https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html)
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 9:07 pm on August 12, 2025:

   Ah, I see now: the redirects are from https://opensource.org/licenses/ to https://opensource.org/license/

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 9:25 pm on August 18, 2025:

   0* BSD-2-Clause: [BSD 2-Clause License](https://opensource.org/license/BSD-2-Clause)
   1* BSD-3-Clause: [BSD 3-Clause License](https://opensource.org/license/BSD-3-Clause)
   2* CC0-1.0: [CC0 1.0 Universal](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
   3* FSFAP: [FSF All Permissive License](https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html)
   4* CC-BY-4.0: [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
   5* MIT: [Expat/MIT/X11 License](https://opensource.org/license/MIT)
   6* MIT-0: [MIT No Attribution License](https://opensource.org/license/MIT-0)
   

9. 
   jonatack commented at 9:09 pm on August 12, 2025: member

   Thank you for the additional info. ACK on updating the redirects. The rest would need sign-off by BIP author @murchandamus (who is away this week). Also, I would encourage relying less on AI for generating content and responses, please.
10. jonatack assigned murchandamus on Aug 12, 2025
11. 
    murchandamus commented at 9:21 pm on August 18, 2025: contributor

    Thanks for noticing and fixing the redirect.

    Adding MIT-0 seems fine, but please add it below MIT. NACK on the other changes to the order, the list was ordered deliberately in that way.

12. 
    1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw commented at 10:43 pm on August 18, 2025: none

    @murchandamus

    NACK on the other changes to the order, the list was ordered deliberately in that way.

    I believe MIT (Bitcoin’s standard license) should not be deprioritized in favor of BSD or other licenses.

13. murchandamus changes_requested
14. 
    murchandamus commented at 6:05 pm on August 19, 2025: contributor

    The reasoning for putting MIT first is not convincing. While Bitcoin Core and some other projects are published under terms of the MIT license, the MIT license has been hardly been used in this repository.

    I count three BIPs that are licensed under MIT (39, 48, 351).

    It has been used slightly more to license source code: there are four BIPs that license associated code solely under MIT (98, 116, 117, 330), one BIP that used MIT as one of multiple licenses (340), and three BIPs with auxiliary files whose headers indicate being licensed under MIT (328, 352, 374).

    BIP 3 sunsets the License-Code header in favor of Auxiliary Files stating their own terms.

    Therefore, the PR as currently proposed feels like a disimprovement to me. Please refer to my suggested amendment for my perspective on what would be an acceptable change.

15. 
    1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw commented at 6:17 pm on August 19, 2025: none

    Okay, I will change it soon.

Contributors
1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw jonatack murchandamus

Labels
Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance