Comparison of free software licenses

From Seo Wiki - Search Engine Optimization and Programming Languages

Jump to: navigation, search

This is a comparison of published free software licenses.

Contents

General comparison

The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license.[1]

Note that a "yes" in either of the last two columns (Link with code using a different license and Release changes under a different license) is not an absolute answer, there may still be restrictions in the license related to this action. You should review the specific license terms[2] and refer to the reference table[1] for more details regarding a "yes" in these columns.

License Author Latest version Publication date Link with code using a different license Release changes under a different license
Academic Free License Lawrence E. Rosen 3 2002 Yes Yes
Apache LicenseApache Software Foundation2.02004 Yes Yes
Apple Public Source LicenseApple Computer2.02003August 6, 2003 Yes No
Artistic License Larry Wall 2.0 2000 YesWith restrictions
Berkeley Database License Oracle Corporation ? 2008February 7, 2008 No No
BSD license Regents of the University of California ? ? Yes Yes
Boost Software License? 1.0 2003August 17, 2003 Yes Yes
Common Development and Distribution License Sun Microsystems 1.0 2004December 1, 2004 Yes Yes
Common Public License IBM 1.0 2001May 2001 Yes No
Cryptix General License Cryptix Foundation ? 1995 Yes Yes
Eclipse Public LicenseEclipse Foundation1.0? Yes No
Educational Community License?1.0? Yes Yes
Eiffel Forum LicenseNICE22002 Yes Yes
EUPL European Commission 1.1 2009January 2009 YesWith an explicit compatibility list
GNU General Public LicenseFree Software Foundation3.02007June 2007 No No
GNU Lesser General Public LicenseFree Software Foundation3.02007June 2007 Yes No
Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License AgreementHacktivismo/Cult of the Dead Cow? 2002November 26, 2002 ? ?
IBM Public LicenseIBM1.01999August 1999 Yes Yes
Intel Open Source LicenseIntel Corporation? ? Yes Yes
ISC licenseInternet Systems Consortium? 2003June 2003 Yes Yes
LaTeX Project Public LicenseLaTeX project1.3c? Yes Yes
MIT license / X11 license MIT Template:N/aTemplate:Fn 1988 Yes Yes
Mozilla Public LicenseMozilla Foundation1.1? Yes Limited
Netscape Public LicenseNetscape1.1? ? ?
OPaC Free Public License OPaC bright ideas  ? 1998 No No
Open Software License Lawrence Rosen 3.0 2005 Yes No
OpenSSL licenseOpenSSL Project? ? ? ?
PHP LicensePHP Group3.01? Yes Yes
Poetic License Alex Genaud 1.0 2005 Yes Yes
Python Software Foundation LicensePython Software Foundation2? Yes Yes
Q Public LicenseTrolltech? ? No No
Sun Industry Standards Source LicenseSun Microsystems? ? Yes No
Sun Public LicenseSun Microsystems? ? Yes No
Sybase Open Watcom Public License? ? ? Yes No
W3C Software Notice and License? ? ? Yes Yes
XFree86 1.1 License? ? ? Yes Yes
zlib/libpng license? ? ? Yes Yes
Zope Public License? ? ? Yes Yes
License Author Latest version Publication date Link with code from a different license Release changes under a different license

Approvals

This table lists for each license what organizations from the free software community have approved it - be it as a "free software" or as an “open source” license - and how those organizations categorize it. Organizations usually approve specific versions of software licenses.

License and specific version FSF approval[3] Compatible with GPL OSI approval[2] DFSG approval[4][5] Fedora Project approval[6]
Academic Free License Yes No Yes? Yes
Apache License version 1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Apache License version 1.1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Apache License version 2 Yes YesTemplate:Fn Yes Yes Yes
Apple Public Source License version 1.x No No? No No
Apple Public Source License version 2.0 Yes No Yes No Yes
Artistic License 1.0 No No Yes Yes No
Clarified Artistic License (draft 2.0) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Artistic License 2.0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Berkeley Database License Yes Yes Yes??
original BSD license Yes No Yes No Yes
modified BSD license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Boost Software License Yes Yes Yes? Yes
Common Development and Distribution License Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Common Public License Yes No Yes? Yes
Creative Commons licenses (Tags: by & sa) Yes No?≥ v3.0 only[7] Yes
Creative Commons licenses (Tags: nc & nd) No No? No[7]by-nd only
Cryptix General License Yes Yes No? Yes
Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) YesTemplate:Fn Yes?? Yes
Eclipse Public License Yes No Yes? Yes
Educational Community License?? Yes? Yes
Eiffel Forum License version 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
GNU General Public License Yes YesTemplate:Fn YesTemplate:Fn Yes Yes
GNU Lesser General Public License Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement No No No? No
IBM Public License Yes No Yes? Yes
Intel Open Source License Yes Yes Yes? No
ISC license Yes[8] Yes Yes Yes Yes
LaTeX Project Public License Yes No No Yes Yes
Microsoft Public License Yes No Yes? Yes
Microsoft Reciprocal License Yes No Yes? No
MIT license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mozilla Public License Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Netscape Public License Yes No No? Yes
Open Software License Yes No Yes No Yes
OpenSSL license Yes No No Yes Yes
PHP License Yes No Yes Yesv3.0/3.01 only, others are unknown
POV-Ray-License No No No No?
Python Software Foundation License 2.0.1; 2.1.1 and newer Yes Yes Yes Yes?
Q Public License Yes No Yes? Yes
Sun Industry Standards Source License Yes No Yes? Yes
Sun Public License Yes No Yes? Yes
Sybase Open Watcom Public License?? Yes? No
W3C Software Notice and License Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
XFree86 1.1 License Yes YesTemplate:Fn No??
zlib/libpng license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zope Public License version 1.0 Yes No?? Yes
Zope Public License version 2.0 Yes Yes Yes? Yes
License and specific version FSF approval Compatible with GPL OSI approval DFSG approval Fedora Project approval

Notes

  • Template:Fnb Was never revised.
  • Template:Fnb Compatible to version 3 of the GPL but not compatible to version 2.
  • Template:Fnb The original version of the Artistic License is defined as non-free because it is overly vague, not because the substance of the license. The FSF encourages projects to use the Clarified Artistic License instead.[1]
  • Template:Fnb Listed as WTFPL.

References

See also

es:Anexo:Comparación de licencias de software libre

it:Comparazione di licenze libere

Personal tools

Served in 0.631 secs.