[BIP 2] License header in preamble #334

pull MarcoFalke wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from MarcoFalke:patch-1 changing 1 files +31 −16
  1. MarcoFalke commented at 10:12 PM on February 13, 2016: member

    No description provided.

  2. [BIP 2] License header in preamble 7f12be52d3
  3. luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Feb 13, 2016
  4. luke-jr commented at 10:20 PM on February 13, 2016: member

    Would be nice to use an existing abbreviation list. Maybe Gentoo's?

    Also, it's not clear how one might specify needing two different licenses, such as when example code is not under the same licenses as the BIP text.

    (and I'd prefer to disallow PD in new BIPs...)

  5. harding commented at 2:03 AM on February 14, 2016: contributor

    @luke-jr do you have a write-up or link to why you'd like to disallow PD in future BIPs? Using PD is my preference for my own self-published documentation, but I'm interested in learning why you think it's a bad idea.

  6. luke-jr commented at 2:09 AM on February 14, 2016: member

    @harding Releasing into PD is not a legally valid action in some jurisdictions.

  7. harding commented at 2:14 AM on February 14, 2016: contributor

    @luke-jr ah, fair point. How do you feel about near alternatives like CC0 that put the doc in PD if possible but have a unlimited-use copyright fallback when that isn't an option?

  8. luke-jr commented at 3:18 AM on February 14, 2016: member

    @harding CC0 is already on the list...

  9. harding commented at 3:20 AM on February 14, 2016: contributor

    @luke-jr ah, sorry. I overlooked that. Anyway, concept ACK on not using PD for future BIPs as long as CC0 or similar public-domain-or-backup options are available.

  10. luke-jr commented at 5:38 AM on February 24, 2016: member

    @MarcoFalke ping?

  11. MarcoFalke commented at 5:39 AM on February 26, 2016: member

    Sorry, was busy last week. Will try to get back to this within some days.

  12. [BIP 2] Allow optional License-Code header 56bea488cb
  13. MarcoFalke commented at 1:26 PM on February 27, 2016: member

    Would be nice to use an existing abbreviation list. Maybe Gentoo's?

    I could not find GNU-ALL-PERMISSIVE so I will just leave it as is.

    Also, it's not clear how one might specify needing two different licenses, such as when example code is not under the same licenses as the BIP text.

    Added a commit to address this concern.

    (and I'd prefer to disallow PD in new BIPs...)

    It is already in the "not recommended" section but you can't forbid someone using it. Also we need the abbreviation to apply it to the other bips (grandfather policy).

  14. luke-jr commented at 2:39 PM on February 27, 2016: member

    Can't we forbid PD moving forward? It's essentially the same as no license at all in some places... (but yes, I agree we need an abbreviation for grandfathered-in stuff.)

  15. in bip-0002.mediawiki:None in 56bea488cb 
     132 | @@ -133,31 +133,46 @@ Will BIP comments be censored or limited to particular participants/"experts"?
 133 |  
 134 |  ==BIP licensing==
 135 |  
 136 | -New BIPs may be accepted with the following licenses:
 137 | -
 138 |  ===Specification===
 139 |  
 140 | +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.
    luke-jr commented at 2:52 PM on February 27, 2016:

    I don't think we should start defining ordering of headers here.

    Also, it is undefined how to interpret multiple licenses (OR vs AND; probably want OR).

    MarcoFalke commented at 3:32 PM on February 27, 2016:

    There is a strict order defined in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#bip-header-preamble so let's jut keep a strict order.

  16. luke-jr commented at 2:54 PM on February 27, 2016: member

    Where are the abbreviations from?

  17. MarcoFalke commented at 3:27 PM on February 27, 2016: member

    Where are the abbreviations from?

    I have tried to stick to what their respective link says, or what appears to be commonly used. You are welcome to replace them with the Gentoo abbreviations but I don't think this is important as long as it is understandable/not misleading and unique.

  18. luke-jr merged this on Mar 8, 2016
  19. luke-jr closed this on Mar 8, 2016
  20. MarcoFalke deleted the branch on Mar 8, 2016
Contributors
MarcoFalkeluke-jrharding
Labels
Proposed BIP modification
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: 2026-04-14 11:10 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me