You are welcome to use any of our licenses even if your programis not a GNU package; indeed, we hope you will. For example, if your program is a webapplication, its interface could display a “Source” link thatleads users to an archive of the code. For interactive programs, it is usually a good idea to make theprogram display a brief notice about copyright and copying permissionwhen it starts up. If a release has one statement that “This program is releasedunder license FOO,” in a central place such as the README file,that makes the situation clear for that release. Please note that, since theLGPL is a set of additional permissions on top of the GPL, it's crucialto include both licenses so users have all the materials they need tounderstand their rights.
Releases
That denies freedom 0.Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any softwarethat has been released under it. It is not a free softwarelicense, because it requires sending every published modified versionto a specific initial developer. This license is nonfree because of Article 3, which arguablyincludes a requirement not to violate the license of anyprogram that the user runs—even proprietary programs. Please don't use this license, and weurge you to avoid any software that has been released under it.
Licenses for Works of Practical Use
Unfortunately, it has a choice of lawclause which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. Depending onwhether Fraunhofer still has active patents covering the work, thesoftware might be a trap now, or not. In terms of GPL compatibility, the Eclipse Public License version2.0 is essentially equivalent to version 1.0.
We recommend releasing them under the GNU GeneralPublic License, version 3 or later. Circuits are meant for practical use, so circuit designs should carrya free license. Please bespecific about which Creative Commons license is beingused.
The “Commons Clause” is a nonfree license because itforbids selling copies of the program, and even running the program aspart of implementing any commercial service. Versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 are not freesoftware licenses. Such a restriction in a software license,in the name of any cause whatsoever, imposes too much power over users. Inmost cases it is better to copyleft your code to assure that freedom reaches allusers of the code. In order for a program to be free, its copyright holders mustexplicitly grant users the fouressential freedoms.
Why license notices?
The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one called“OpenSSL License” and the other being the license of SSLeay. We urge you not to use the older OpenLDAP license for software youwrite. However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program(or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. We recommend that you not use thislicense for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improvePlan 9 under this license. For thisreason, it may take some careful checking to produce a version ofLaTeX that is free software. With this facility, therequirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the samerequirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to concludeit makes the program nonfree.
The copyright disclaimer
- This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with anadvertising clause.
- To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 licenseinstead.
- This is not a free software license, because it restricts what jobspeople can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways whatjobs modified versions of the program can do.
- This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;unlike the X11 license, it has some complexrestrictions that make it incompatible withthe GNU GPL.
- You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program.
- This makes it possible to use the Unicode v3license as a template to release other data or software underit.
- This is a free software license, compatible with both GPLv2 andGPLv3.
This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software licensewhich is compatible with the GNU GPL. A larger programusually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissivelicense for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protectsusers from patent treachery. A larger program usuallyought to be copyleft; but if you are set on using a lax permissivelicense for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protectsusers from patent treachery. This is a lax permissive non-copyleft free software license,compatible with the GNU GPL.
- Absent alicense to grant users freedom, they don’t have any.
- However, it givesrecipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selectedlicenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License inparticular—only provide a weaker copyleft.
- That would make them non-copyleft free softwarelicenses and compatible with the GNU GPL.
- Thus, we recommend you donot use this license for documentation.
- Microsoft has other licenses which it describes as “SharedSource”, some of which have different restrictions.
- You can use our publications to understand how GNU licenses work or helpyou advocate for free software, but they are not legal advice.
- This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPLthanks to the relicensing option in section 4(c)(ii).
This is a license intended for use oncopylefted free documentation. The following licenses qualify as freedocumentation licenses. The license prohibitsdistribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software tobe included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are soldby companies and by organizations. If a university tries to impose a license like this on the softwareyou betory casino bonus are writing, don't give up hope.
To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of codewhich you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable modulealready available that way, and add it to the program. The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only, becausethose licenses are listed as two of the alternative licenses that usersmay convert to. However, it givesrecipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selectedlicenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License inparticular—only provide a weaker copyleft.
This license covers the European Computer Modern Fonts and TextCompanion Fonts, commonly used with LaTeX. However, notethat it does not permit embedding the font in a document unless thatdocument is also licensed under the GPL. As far as we know, an implementation ofa design is always copyrightable.
That would be anuisance, but the fact that a license would make code nonfree iftransplanted into a very different context does not make it nonfree inthe original context. As far as it goes, it is a free software license, butincompatible with the GPL because it hasmany requirements that are not in the GPL. Adding that code to the CeCILL-coveredprogram provides grounds to relicense it to GPLv3-or-later. Then you need to write a piece of code which you can licenseunder the GPLv3-or-later, or find a suitable module already available that way,and add it to the program. Adding that codeto the EUPL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to theCeCILL v2.
Using Creative Commons and Open Software Licenses
Those restrictions are probably not legallyenforceable under US copyright law, but they might be in some countries;even asserting them is outrageous. It also purports torestrict commercially running the software and even commercially givingconsultation about it. There are other points in the license which seem perhapsunacceptable, and in our uncertainty about them we delayed in postingour evaluation.
The following licenses do not qualify as free softwarelicenses. This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL.The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by thelaws of the State of Virginia, in the USA, and the GPL does not permitthis. This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. Recent versions of OpenSSL (from 3.0.0 on) are released under the Apache License 2.0. Recent versions of the Open Software License havea term which requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent tothe license.