Comparison of free and open-source software licenses

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (April 2026) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

|

This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (April 2026) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

|

Short description: none

This comparison only covers software licenses which have a linked Wikipedia article for details and which are approved by at least one of the following expert groups: the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, the Debian Project and the Fedora Project. For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free-content licenses.

## Contents

* 1 FOSS licenses
* 2 General comparison
* 3 Approvals
* 4 See also
* 5 Notes
* 6 References

## FOSS licenses

FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software". There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free.[2] FSF's free software and OSI's open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition. The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution, e.g. the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement, which requires the code to be "original" work.[3][4] The OSI does not endorse FSF license analysis (interpretation) as per their disclaimer.[5]

The FSF's Free Software Definition focuses on the user's unrestricted rights to use a program, to study and modify it, to copy it, and to redistribute it for any purpose, which are considered by the FSF the four essential freedoms.[6][7] The OSI's open-source criteria focuses on the availability of the source code and the advantages of an unrestricted and community driven development model.[8] Yet, many FOSS licenses, like the Apache License, and all Free Software licenses allow commercial use of FOSS components.[9]

## General comparison

This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, values used in the below table are not defined and some are ambiguous. Please help us clarify the article. There is a discussion about this on Talk:Comparison of free and open-source software licenses § General comparison confusing. (May 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

|

For a simpler comparison across the most common licenses see free-software license comparison.

The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license, based on seven subjects or categories. Recent tools like the European Commissions' Licensing Assistant,[10] makes possible the licenses selection and comparison based on more than 40 subjects or categories, with access to their SPDX identifier and full text. The table below lists the permissions and limitations regarding the following subjects:

* Linking \- linking of the licensed code with code licensed under a different license (e.g. when the code is provided as a library)
* Distribution \- distribution of the code to third parties
* Modification \- modification of the code by a licensee
* Patent grant \- protection of licensees from patent claims made by code contributors regarding their contribution, and protection of contributors from patent claims made by licensees
* Private use \- whether modification to the code must be shared with the community or may be used privately (e.g. internal use by a corporation)
* Sublicensing \- whether modified code may be licensed under a different license (for example a copyright) or must retain the same license under which it was provided
* TM grant \- use of trademarks associated with the licensed code or its contributors by a licensee

In this table, "permissive" means the software has minimal restrictions on how it can be used, modified, and redistributed, usually including a warranty disclaimer. "Copyleft" means the software requires that its source code be made available to each user and that all provisions in the license be preserved in derivative works.

License  | Author  | Latest version  | Publication date  | Linking  | Distribution  | Modification  | Patent grant  | Private use  | Sublicensing  | TM grant

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Academic Free License[11] | Lawrence E. Rosen | 3.0 | 2002 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Yes | Yes | Permissive | No
Affero General Public License | Affero Inc | 3.0 | 2007 | Copylefted[12] | Copyleft except for the GNU AGPL[13] | Copyleft[13] | ? | Yes[13] | ? | ?
Apache License | Apache Software Foundation | 2.0 | 2004 | Permissive[14] | Permissive[14] | Permissive[14] | Yes[14] | Yes[14] | Permissive[14] | No[14]
Apple Public Source License | Apple Computer | 2.0 | August 6, 2003 | Permissive | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ?
Artistic License | Larry Wall | 2.0 | 2000 | With restrictions | With restrictions | With restrictions | No | Permissive | With restrictions | No
Beerware | Poul-Henning Kamp | 42 | 1998[lower-alpha 1] | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | No | Permissive | Permissive | No
BSD License | Regents of the University of California | 3.0 | ? | Permissive[15] | Permissive[15] | Permissive[15] | Manually[15] | Yes[15] | Permissive[15] | Manually[15]
Boost Software License | Devin Smith[16] | 1.0 | August 17, 2003 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | No | Permissive | With restrictions | No
Creative Commons Zero | Creative Commons | 1.0 | 2009 | Public Domain[17][18] | Public Domain | Public Domain | No | Public Domain | No[19] | No
CC BY | Creative Commons | 4.0 | 2002 | Permissive[20] | Permissive | Permissive | No | Yes | No[21] | No
CC BY-SA | Creative Commons | 4.0 | 2002 | Copylefted[20] | Copylefted | Copylefted | No | Yes | No[22] | No
CeCILL | CEA / CNRS / INRIA | 2.1 | June 21, 2013 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | No | Permissive | With restrictions | No
Common Development and Distribution License | Sun Microsystems | 1.0 | December 1, 2004 | Permissive | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ?
Common Public License | IBM | 1.0 | May 2001 | Permissive | ? | Copylefted | ? | ? | ? | ?
Cryptix General License | Cryptix Foundation | N/A | 1995 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Manually | Yes | ? | Manually
Eclipse Public License | Eclipse Foundation | 2.0 | August 24, 2017 | Permissive[23] | Copylefted[23][24] | Copylefted[23] | Yes[23] | Yes[23] | Copylefted[23] | No[23]
Educational Community License | Indiana University[25] | 1.0 | 2007 | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ?
European Union Public Licence | European Commission | 1.2 | May 2017 | Permissive, according to EU law (Recitals 10 & 15 Directive 2009/24/EC) | Copylefted, with an explicit compatibility list[26] | Copylefted, with an explicit compatibility list[26] | Yes[27] | yes, but network usage (communication to the public) is considered as a "distribution"[27] | Copylefted, with an explicit compatibility list[26] | No[27]
FreeBSD | The FreeBSD project | N/A | April 1999 | Permissive[28] | Permissive[28] | Permissive[28] | Manually[28] | Permissive[28] | Permissive[28] | Manually[28]
GLWTS License[29] | Anonymous | 1.0 | 2025 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Yes | Yes | Permissive | Yes
GNU Affero General Public License | Free Software Foundation | 3.0 | 2007 | GNU GPLv3 only[30] | Copylefted[31] | Copylefted[31] | Yes[32] | Network usage is not considered private use[32] | Copylefted[31] | Yes[32]
GNU General Public License | Free Software Foundation | 3.0 | June 2007 | GPLv3 compatible only[33][34] | Copylefted[31] | Copylefted[31] | Yes[35] | Yes[35] | Copylefted[31] | Yes[35]
GNU Lesser General Public License | Free Software Foundation | 3.0 | June 2007 | With restrictions[36] | Copylefted[31] | Copylefted[31] | Yes[37] | Yes | Copylefted[31] | Yes[37]
IBM Public License | IBM | 1.0 | August 1999 | Copylefted | ? | Copylefted | ? | ? | ? | ?
ISC license | Internet Systems Consortium | N/A | June 2003 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Manually | Permissive | Permissive | Manually
LaTeX Project Public License | LaTeX project | 1.3c | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ?
Microsoft Public License | Microsoft | N/A | ? | Copylefted | Copylefted | Copylefted | No | Permissive | ? | No
MIT license / X11 license | MIT | N/A | 1988 | Permissive[38] | Permissive[38] | Permissive[38] | Manually[38] | Yes[38] | Permissive[38] | Manually[38]
Mozilla Public License | Mozilla Foundation | 2.0 | January 3, 2012 | Permissive[39] | Copylefted[39] | Copylefted[39] | Yes[39] | Yes[39] | Copylefted[39] | No[39]
Netscape Public License | Netscape | 1.1 | ? | Limited | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ?
Open Software License[11] | Lawrence Rosen | 3.0 | 2005 | Permissive | Copylefted | Copylefted | Yes | Yes | Copylefted | ?
OpenSSL license | OpenSSL Project | N/A | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ?
PHP License[40] | PHP Group | 3.01 | 2019 | With restrictions | With restrictions | With restrictions | Yes | Yes | With restrictions | Manually
Python Software Foundation License | Python Software Foundation | 3.9.1 | May 10, 2020 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Yes | Permissive | Permissive | No
Q Public License | Trolltech | ? | ? | Limited | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ?
Ruby License | Yukihiro Matsumoto | 2.0 | 1995 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Yes | Permissive | Permissive | No
Sleepycat License | Sleepycat Software | N/A | 1996 | Permissive | With restrictions | Permissive | No | Yes | No | No
Unlicense | unlicense.org | 1 | December 2010 | Permissive/Public domain | Permissive/Public domain | Permissive/Public domain | ? | Permissive/Public domain | Permissive/Public domain | ?
W3C Software Notice and License | W3C | 20021231 | December 31, 2002 | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ?
Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) | Banlu Kemiyatorn, Sam Hocevar | 2 | December 2004 | Permissive/Public domain | Permissive/Public domain | Permissive/Public domain | Implied | Yes | Yes | Implied
XCore Open Source License
also separate "Hardware License Agreement" | XMOS | ? | February 2011 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Manually | Yes | Permissive | ?
XFree86 1.1 License | The XFree86 Project, Inc | ? | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ?
zlib/libpng license | Jean-Loup Gailly and Mark Adler | N/A | April 15, 1995 | Permissive | Permissive | Permissive | Manually | Yes | Permissive | Manually

Other licenses that don't have information:

license  | Author  | Latest version  | Publication date

|
|
|

Eiffel Forum License | NICE | 2 | 2002
Intel Open Source License | Intel Corporation | N/A | ?
RealNetworks Public Source License | RealNetworks | ? | ?
Reciprocal Public License | Scott Shattuck | 1.5 | 2007
Sun Industry Standards Source License | Sun Microsystems | ? | ?
Sun Public License | Sun Microsystems | ? | ?
Sybase Open Watcom Public License | Open Watcom | N/A | 2003-01-28
Zope Public License | Zope Foundation | 2.1 | ?
Server Side Public License | MongoDB | 1.0 | 2018-10-16

## Approvals

This table lists for each license what organizations from the FOSS community have approved it - be it as a "free software" or as an "open source" license - , how those organizations categorize it, and the license compatibility between them for a combined or mixed derivative work. Organizations usually approve specific versions of software licenses. For instance, a FSF approval means that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) considers a license to be free-software license. The FSF recommends at least "Compatible with GPL" and preferably copyleft. The OSI recommends a mix of permissive and copyleft licenses, the Apache License 2.0, 2- & 3-clause BSD license, GPL, LGPL, MIT license, MPL 2.0, CDDL and EPL.

License and version  | FSF approval
[41] | GPL (v3) compatibility
[42][43][44][45][46] | OSI approval
[47] | Debian approval
[48][49] | Fedora approval
[50]

|
|
|
|
|

Academic Free License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
Apache License 1.x | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Apache License 2.0 | Yes | GPLv3 only[51] | Yes | Yes | Yes
Apple Public Source License 1.x | No[52] | No | Yes | No | No
Apple Public Source License 2.0 | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
Artistic License 1.0 | No[note 1] | No | Yes | Yes | No
Artistic License 2.0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Beerware License | see "Informal license" section[53] | see "Informal license" section[53] | No | No | Yes[54]
Original BSD license | Yes | No | No[55] | Yes | Yes
Revised BSD license | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Simplified BSD license | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Zero-Clause BSD License | Yes | Yes | Yes[56] | ? | Yes
Boost Software License | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
CeCILL | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Common Public License | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Creative Commons Zero | Yes[57] | Yes[57] | No[58] | Yes | Yes[59]
Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 | Yes | GPLv3[60] | ? | Yes | ?
Cryptix General License | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Eclipse Public License | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Educational Community License | Yes | Yes[61] | Yes | No | Yes
Eiffel Forum License 2 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
European Union Public Licence | Yes | Yes[26] | Yes | Yes | Yes
GNU Affero General Public License | Yes | Yes[30][62] | Yes | Yes | Yes
GNU General Public License v2 | Yes | No[note 2][63] | Yes | Yes | Yes
GNU General Public License v3 | Yes | Yes[note 3][63] | Yes | Yes | Yes
GNU Lesser General Public License | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
GNU Free Documentation License | Yes | No[64] | Yes[65] | No[66] | No
IBM Public License | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Intel Open Source License | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No
ISC license | Yes[67] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
LaTeX Project Public License | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Microsoft Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
Microsoft Reciprocal License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
MIT license / X11 license | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
MIT No Attribution License | Yes | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes
Mozilla Public License 1.1 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Mozilla Public License 2.0 | Yes | Yes[note 4][68] | Yes | Yes | Yes
NASA Open Source Agreement | No | No | Yes | ? | No
Netscape Public License | Yes | No | No | No | Yes
Open Software License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
OpenSSL license | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes
PHP License | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Python Software Foundation License 2.0.1; 2.1.1 and newer | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Q Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
Reciprocal Public License 1.5 | No | No | Yes | No | No
Sleepycat License | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Sun Industry Standards Source License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
Sun Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes
Sybase Open Watcom Public License | No | No | Yes | No | No
Unlicense | Yes[69] | Yes[57] | Yes[70] | ? | Yes[59]
W3C Software Notice and License | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) | Yes[note 5] | Yes | No[71] | Yes | Yes
XFree86 1.1 License | Yes | Yes[72] | No | No | No
zlib/libpng license | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
Zope Public License 1.0 | Yes | No | No | No | Yes
Zope Public License 2.0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes

1. ↑ The original version of the Artistic License is defined as non-free because it is overly vague, not because of the substance of the license. The FSF encourages projects to use the Clarified Artistic License instead.
2. ↑ But can be made compatible by upgrading to GPLv3 via the optional "or later" clause added in most GPLv2 license texts.
3. ↑ But not with GPLv2 without "or later" clause.
4. ↑ MPL 2.0 is GPL compatible unless marked "Incompatible with Secondary Licenses".
5. ↑ Listed as WTFPL.

## See also

* Creative Commons licenses
* Free software
* Free-software license
* List of free and open-source software packages
* List of open-source hardware projects
* List of open-source programming languages
* List of open-source video games
* List of public domain projects
* Open-source license
* Open-source software
* Source-available software
* SPDX-License-identifier
* License proliferation
* European Union Public Licence

## Notes

1. ↑ See footnote of the Beerware article

## References

1. ↑ Open source licenses - Licenses by Name on opensource.org
2. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.
3. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them: NASA Open Source Agreement". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#NASA.
4. ↑ "Licenses by Name". 16 September 2022. https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical.
5. ↑ "Other Resources & Disclaimer". https://opensource.org/node/778. "While the OSI acknowledges these as potentially helpful resources for the community, it does not endorse any content, contributors or license interpretations from these websites.[...]The OSI does not promote or exclusively favor any of the above resources, but instead mentions them as a neutral, separate third-party."
6. ↑ "Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement", Free Software Foundation, Inc
7. ↑ "What is Free Software", Free Software Foundation, Inc
8. ↑ opensource.org/about "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."
9. ↑ Popp, Dr. Karl Michael (2015). Best Practices for commercial use of open source software. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand. ISBN 978-3738619096.
10. ↑ "Licensing Assistant". https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/solution/joinup-licensing-assistant/joinup-licensing-assistant-jla.
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 "OSL 3.0 Explained". https://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm.
12. ↑ "affero.org: Affero General Public License version 1 (AGPLv1)". http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html.
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 "affero.org: Affero General Public License version 2 (AGPLv2)". http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html.
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 "Apache License, Version 2.0". https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution.
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 "BSD license". 22 May 2011. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.
16. ↑ "Boost Software License". Boost (C++ libraries). December 3, 2003. https://www.boost.org/users/license.html.
17. ↑ "Using CC0 for public domain software". Creative Commons. April 15, 2011. https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081.
18. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". GNU Project. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.
19. ↑ "FAQ". Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/faq/.
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses (2015)
21. ↑ "FAQ". Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/faq/.
22. ↑ "FAQ". Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/faq/.
23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 Beaton, Wayne. "Eclipse Public License 2.0 (EPL) | The Eclipse Foundation". https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/.
24. ↑ "Explanation of Common Open Source Licenses". https://www.capitalone.com/tech/open-source/open-source-licenses-explained/.
25. ↑ Greenstein, Daniel; Wheeler, Brad (1 March 2007). "Open Source Collaboration in Higher Education: Guidelines and Report of the Licensing and Policy Framework Summit for Software Sharing in Higher Education". https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/3076.
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 "Matrix of EUPL compatible open source licences | Interoperable Europe Portal". https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/matrix-eupl-compatible-open-source-licences.
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 "EUPL text (EUPL-1.2) | Interoperable Europe Portal". https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12.
28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 "The FreeBSD Copyright". https://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license/.
29. ↑ "Good Luck With That Shit Public License". https://github.com/buyukakyuz/corroded/blob/main/NSFW_LICENSE.
30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html : section 13 of the GNU AGPLv3 license
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-howto.html : GNU licenses copyleft
32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 "GNU Affero General Public License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html.
33. ↑ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL : If library is under GPLv3
34. ↑ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL : Linking with the GNU GPLv3
35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 "gnu.org". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
36. ↑ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html : the section 4 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3
37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html.
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 "MIT License". 31 October 2006. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT.
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 "Mozilla Public License, version 2.0". https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/.
40. ↑ "PHP License 3.01". https://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt.
41. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Licenses. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.
42. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "To be GPL-Compatible has to be compatible with Licenses GNU GPLv3 and GNU GPLv2 – Free Software Foundation". Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Introduction.
43. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses – Free Software Foundation". Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses.
44. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses – Free Software Foundation". Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses.
45. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-compatible Definition by FSF – Free Software Foundation". GPL-compatible Definition. Free Software Foundation. http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ_Update#What_does_it_mean_to_say_a_license_is_.22compatible_with_the_GPL.22.3F.
46. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-compatible Definition previous version by FSF – Free Software Foundation". GPL-compatible Definition. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean.
47. ↑ Open Source Initiative (16 September 2022). "The Approved Licenses". License Information. Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/.
48. ↑ Debian. "Debian – License information". Licenses. Debian. http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/.
49. ↑ "The DFSG and Software Licenses". Debian wiki. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses.
50. ↑ Fedora. "Allowed Licenses". Fedora Project. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/.
51. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "Apache License, Version 2.0". Licenses. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#apache2.
52. ↑ "Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 1.x". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apsl1.
53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Free Software Foundation. 2016-01-05. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#informal.
54. ↑ "Licensing/Beerware". Fedora Project. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Beerware.
55. ↑ "The BSD License:Licensing". Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php.
56. ↑ "[License-review Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD."]. Open Source Initiative. http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003830.html.
57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 57.2 "Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CC0.
58. ↑ "Frequently Answered Questions". opensource.org. 21 October 2007. http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero. ""CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved""
59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 "License Approval". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval/.
60. ↑ "Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 declared one-way compatible with GNU GPL version 3 — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software". https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3.
61. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "Educational Community License 2.0". Licenses. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ECL2.0.
62. ↑ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ : "We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software."
63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?". gnu.org. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility. "No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL "version 2 or later," that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits."
64. ↑ "Re: Proposed statement WRT GNU FDL". https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/04/msg00258.html.
65. ↑ "SPDX License List | Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX)". https://spdx.org/licenses/.
66. ↑ "General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main". https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001.
67. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "A Quick Guide to GPLv3". Licenses. Free Software Foundation. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#new-compatible-licenses.
68. ↑ Mozilla Foundation. "MPL 2.0 FAQ". Licenses. Mozilla Foundation. https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html.
69. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Unlicense.
70. ↑ "[License-review Request for legacy approval: The Unlicense"]. http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-June/004890.html.
71. ↑ "OSI Board Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, March 4, 2009". 4 May 2009. http://www.opensource.org/minutes20090304.
72. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "XFree86 1.1 License". Licenses. Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#XFree861.1License.

* v
* t
* e

Free-culture and open-source movements

Concepts and
practices|

| Key concepts|

* Commons-based peer production
* Crowdsourcing
* Gratis versus libre
* Open collaboration
* Openness
* Participatory culture
* Sharism

| Social peer-to-peer processes|

* Peer-to-peer banking
* Peer-to-peer carsharing
* Peer-to-peer lending
* Peer-to-peer ridesharing

|

Research and science|

* Citizen science
* Open science
* Access
* Notebook science
* Research
* Science data
* Plan S

Data, information,
and knowledge|

* Free content
* Knowledge commons
* Open communication
* Open knowledge
* Content
* Data

Communication
and learning|

| Media|

* Collaborative writing
* Democratic media
* Open publishing
* Participatory media
* Peer review

|

Education|

* Open education
* Educational resources
* University
* Admissions
* Open-door academic policy

Journalism|

* Citizen media
* Citizen journalism and Wiki journalism
* Open-source journalism

Economy, production,
and development|

| Products|

* Free and open-source software - FOSS
* Free/Libre software
* Open-source software
* Open-design movement
* Robotics
* Open gaming
* Open-source architecture
* Open-source hardware

|

Economic principles|

* Gift economy
* Open innovation
* Open patent
* Open standard
* Sharing economy

Politics and governance|

* Open government
* Open-source governance

Organizations|

* Creative Commons
* Free Software Foundation
* Open Architecture Network
* Openmod initiative
* Open Knowledge International
* Open Rights Group
* Open Source Initiative
* Open Web Foundation
* P2P Foundation
* Pirate Party
* PLOS
* SPARC

Activists|

* Tim Berners-Lee
* Alexandra Elbakyan
* Cody Wilson
* Lawrence Lessig
* Peter Murray-Rust
* Douglas Rushkoff
* Richard Stallman
* Peter Suber
* Peter Sunde
* Aaron Swartz
* Matthew H. Todd
* John Wilbanks

Projects and
movements|

* DIYbio
* Free-culture movement
* Free software movement
* Open science movement
* Open Source Ecology
* Open-source software movement
* OpenCores
* OpenWetWare
* Sci-Hub

| Tools|

* Licenses
* Creative Commons
* GPL
* Definition Docs
* Free Cultural Works
* Free Software
* Open
* Open Source
* Open Data Indices
* Open educational resources
* Open music model
* Open Web movement

|

* v
* t
* e

Intellectual property activism

Issues|

* Artificial scarcity
* Copyright infringement
* Digital rights management
* Gripe site
* Legal aspects of file sharing
* Mashup
* digital
* music
* videos
* Monopolies of knowledge
* Music piracy
* Orphan works
* Patents
* biological
* software
* software patent debate
* trolling
* Public domain

Concepts|

* All rights reversed
* Alternative compensation system
* Anti-copyright notice
* Business models for open-source software
* Copyleft
* Commercial use of copyleft works
* Commons-based peer production
* Electronic sell-through
* Free content
* Free software license
* Libertarian positions
* Open content
* Open-design movement
* Open Music Model
* Open patent
* Open-source
* Open-source hardware
* Open-source software
* Prize system
* contests
* Share-alike
* Video on demand

Movements|

* Access to Knowledge movement
* Anti-copyright
* Cultural environmentalism
* Free-culture movement
* Free software movement

Organizations|

| Pro-copyright|

* Copyright Alliance

|

Pro-copyleft|

* Creative Commons
*   * Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Free Software Foundation
* Open Rights Group
* Organization for Transformative Works
* The Pirate Bay
* Piratbyrån
* Pirate Party
* Public Knowledge
* Sci-Hub
* Students for Free Culture

People|

* Cory Doctorow
* Alexandra Elbakyan
* Rick Falkvinge
* Lawrence Lessig
* Richard Stallman
* Peter Suber
* Peter Sunde
* Aaron Swartz

Documentaries|

* Steal This Film (2006, 2007)
* Good Copy Bad Copy (2007)
* RiP!: A Remix Manifesto (2008)
* TPB AFK: The Pirate Bay Away From Keyboard (2013)
* The Internet's Own Boy (2014)

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison of free and open-source software licenses. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Company:Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses&oldid=4398803"
*[TM]: trademark
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template