Comparison of free and open-source software licenses

This is a comparison of published free software licenses and open-source licenses. The comparison only covers software licenses with a linked article for details, approved by at least one expert group at the FSF, the OSI, the Debian project, or the Fedora project. For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free content licenses.

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 is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of what it considers free.[2] FSF's free software and OSI's open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. Due to some seldom conflicting cornercases technically not synonymous, for all practical considerations they are identical and widely used interchangeably.[3]

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 redistribute it for any purpose, which are considered by the FSF the four essential freedoms.[4][5] 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.[6]

General comparison

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

License Author Latest version Publication date Linking Distribution Modification Patent grant Private use Sublicensing Grants TM
Academic Free License Lawrence E. Rosen 3 2002 Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Affero General Public LicenseAffero Inc2.02007Copylefted[7]Copyleft except for the GNU AGPL[7]Copyleft[7]?Yes[7]??
Apache LicenseApache Software Foundation2.02004Permissive[8]Permissive[8]Permissive[8]Yes[8]Yes[8]Permissive[8]No[8]
Apple Public Source LicenseApple Computer2.0August 6, 2003Permissive ? Limited ? ? ? ?
Artistic License Larry Wall 2.0 2000 With restrictions ? With restrictions ? ? ? ?
Beerware Poul-Henning Kamp 42 1987 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Berkeley Database License Oracle Corporation ? February 7, 2008 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
BSD LicenseRegents of the University of California3.0?Permissive[9]Permissive[9]Permissive[9]Manually[9]Yes[9]Permissive[9]Manually[9]
Boost Software License? 1.0 August 17, 2003 Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Creative Commons Zero Creative Commons 1.0 2009 Public Domain[10][11] Public Domain Public Domain NoPublic Domain Public Domain No
CC-BY Creative Commons 4.0 2002 Permissive[12] Permissive Permissive No Yes Permissive ?
CC-BY-SA Creative Commons 4.0 2002 Copylefted[13] Copylefted Copylefted No Yes No ?
CeCILL CEA / CNRS / INRIA 2.0 May 21, 2005 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
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 ? 1995 PermissivePermissivePermissiveManuallyYes?Manually
Eclipse Public LicenseEclipse Foundation1.0 February 2004 Limited[14]Limited[14]Limited[14]Yes[14]Yes[14]Limited[14]Manually[14]
Educational Community License?1.0?Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Eiffel Forum LicenseNICE22002? ? ? ? ? ? ?
EUPL European Commission 1.1 January 2009 Limited ? With an explicit compatibility list ? ? ? ?
GNU Affero General Public LicenseFree Software Foundation3.02007GNU GPLv3 only[15]Copylefted[16]Copylefted[16]Yes[17]Copylefted[17]Copylefted[16]Yes[17]
GNU General Public LicenseFree Software Foundation3.0June 2007GPLv3 compatible only[18][19] Copylefted[16]Copylefted[16]Yes[20]Yes[20]Copylefted[16]Yes[20]
GNU Lesser General Public LicenseFree Software Foundation3.0June 2007With restrictions[21]Copylefted[16]Copylefted[16]Yes[22]YesCopylefted[16]Yes[22]
IBM Public LicenseIBM1.0August 1999Copylefted ? Copylefted ? ? ? ?
Intel Open Source LicenseIntel Corporation? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
ISC licenseInternet Systems Consortium? June 2003 Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
LaTeX Project Public LicenseLaTeX project1.3c? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
MIT license / X11 license MIT N/A 1988 Permissive[23]Permissive[23]Permissive[23]Manually[23]Yes[23]Permissive[23]Manually[23]
Mozilla Public LicenseMozilla Foundation2.0 January 3, 2012 Permissive[24]Copylefted[24]Copylefted[24]Yes[24]Yes[24]Copylefted[24]No[24]
Netscape Public LicenseNetscape1.1? Limited ? Limited ? ? ? ?
Open Software License Lawrence Rosen 3.0 2005 Permissive ? Copylefted ? ? ? ?
OpenSSL licenseOpenSSL Project? ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
PHP LicensePHP Group3.01? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Python Software Foundation LicensePython Software Foundation2? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Q Public LicenseTrolltech? ? Limited ? Limited ? ? ? ?
RealNetworks Public Source LicenseRealNetworks? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Reciprocal Public License Scott Shattuck 1.5 2007 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Sun Industry Standards Source LicenseSun Microsystems? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Sun Public LicenseSun Microsystems? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Sybase Open Watcom Public License Open Watcom N/A 2003-01-28 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
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) Sam Hocevar 2 December 2004 Permissive/Public domain ? Permissive/Public domain ? ? ? ?
XCore Open Source License
also separate "Hardware License Agreement"		 XMOS ? February 2011 PermissivePermissivePermissiveManuallyYesPermissive?
XFree86 1.1 License The XFree86 Project, Inc ? ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
zlib/libpng license Jean-Loup Gailly and Mark Adler ? ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Zope Public LicenseZope Foundation2.1? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

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
[25]		 GPL (v3) compatibility
[26][27][28][29][30]		 OSI approval
[31]		 Copyfree approval
[32][33]		 Debian approval
[34][35]		 Fedora approval
[36]
Academic Free LicenseYesNoYesNoNoYes
Affero General Public License 2.0 Yes Yes ? ? ? ?
Apache License 1.xYesNoYesNoYesYes
Apache License 2.0YesGPLv3 only[37]YesNoYesYes
Apple Public Source License 1.xNo[38]NoYesNoNoNo
Apple Public Source License 2.0YesNoYesNoNoYes
Artistic License 1.0No[note 1]NoYesNoYesNo
Artistic License 2.0YesYesYesNoYesYes
Beerware 42 No No No Yes No Yes[39]
Berkeley Database LicenseYesYesYesNoYesYes
Original BSD licenseYesNoNo[40]NoYesYes
Modified BSD licenseYesYesYesYesYesYes
Boost Software LicenseYesYesYesYesYesYes
CeCILLYesYesYesNoYesYes
Common Development and Distribution LicenseYesGPLv3 (GPLv2 disputed)[41][42] [43][44][45][46]YesNoYesYes
Common Public LicenseYesNoYesNoYesYes
Creative Commons ZeroYes[47]Yes[48]not approved and not rejected[49]Yes[50]Partial[51][52]Yes[53]
Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0YesGPLv3[54]????
Cryptix General LicenseYesYesNoYesYesYes
Eclipse Public LicenseYesNoYesNoYesYes
Educational Community LicenseYes Yes[55] YesNoNoYes
Eiffel Forum License 2YesYesYesNoYesYes
GNU Affero General Public LicenseYesYes[15][56]YesNoYesYes
GNU General Public License v2YesNo[note 2][57]YesNoYesYes
GNU General Public License v3YesYes[note 3][57]YesNoYesYes
GNU Lesser General Public LicenseYesYesYesNoYesYes
GNU Free Documentation LicenseYesNo[58]No[59]NoNo[60]No
IBM Public LicenseYesNoYesNo[33]YesYes
Intel Open Source LicenseYesYesYesNoNoNo
ISC licenseYes[61]YesYesYesYesYes
LaTeX Project Public LicenseYesNoYesNo[33]YesYes
Microsoft Public LicenseYesNoYesYesNoYes
Microsoft Reciprocal LicenseYesNoYesNoNoYes
MIT license / X11 licenseYesYesYesYesYesYes
Mozilla Public License 1.1YesNoYesNoYesYes
Mozilla Public License 2.0YesYes[note 4][62]YesNoYesYes
NASA Open Source AgreementNoNoYesNoUnknownNo
Netscape Public LicenseYesNoNoNoNoYes
Open Software LicenseYesNoYesNoNoYes
OpenSSL licenseYesNoNoNoYesYes
PHP LicenseYesNoYesNoYesPartial
Python Software Foundation License 2.0.1; 2.1.1 and newerYesYesYesNoYesYes
Q Public LicenseYesNoYesNoNoYes
Reciprocal Public License 1.5NoNoYesNoNoNo
Sun Industry Standards Source LicenseYesNoYesNoNoYes
Sun Public LicenseYesNoYesNoNoYes
Sybase Open Watcom Public LicenseNoNoYesNoNoNo
Unlicense Yes[63]Yes[64]No[65]??Yes[66]
W3C Software Notice and LicenseYesYesYesNoYesYes
Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL)Yes[note 5]YesNo[67]YesYesYes
XFree86 1.1 LicenseYesYes[68]NoNoNoNo
zlib/libpng licenseYesYesYesNoYesYes
Zope Public License 1.0YesNoNoNoNoYes
Zope Public License 2.0YesYesYesNoNoYes
  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

References

  1. ↑ Open source licenses - Licenses by Name on opensource.org
  2. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Retrieved August 8, 2011.
  3. ↑ What is "free software" and is it the same as "open source"? on opensource.com "The FSF uses a shorter, four-point definition of software freedom when evaluating licenses, while the OSI uses a longer, ten-point definition. The two definitions lead to the same result in practice, but use superficially different language to get there."
  4. ↑ "Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement", Free Software Foundation, Inc
  5. ↑ "What is Free Software", Free Software Foundation, Inc
  6. ↑ 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."
  7. 1 2 3 4 "affero.org: Affero General Public License version 2 (AGPLv2)".
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "the section 4 of the apache license version 2".
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "BSD license".
  10. ↑ "Using CC0 for public domain software". Creative Commons. April 15, 2011. Retrieved May 10, 2011.
  11. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". GNU Project. Retrieved April 4, 2015.
  12. ↑ cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses (2015)
  13. ↑ cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses (2015)
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "the eclipse public license version 1".
  15. 1 2 : section 13 of the GNU AGPLv3 license
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : GNU licenses copyleft
  17. 1 2 3 "the GNU Affero General Public License version 3".
  18. ↑ : If library is under GPLv3
  19. ↑ : Linking with the GNU GPLv3
  20. 1 2 3 "the GNU General Public License version 3".
  21. ↑ : the section 4 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3
  22. 1 2 "the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3".
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "MIT License".
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "MPL version 2".
  25. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
  26. ↑ 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.
  27. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses – Free Software Foundation". Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
  28. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses – Free Software Foundation". Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
  29. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-compatible Definition by FSF – Free Software Foundation". GPL-compatible Definition. Free Software Foundation.
  30. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "GPL-compatible Definition previous version by FSF – Free Software Foundation". GPL-compatible Definition. Free Software Foundation.
  31. ↑ Open Source Initiative. "The Approved Licenses". License Information. Open Source Initiative.
  32. ↑ Copyfree Initiative. "Copyfree Licenses". Copyfree Initiative.
  33. 1 2 3 "Rejected Licenses". CopyFree Initiative. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
  34. ↑ Debian. "Debian – License information". Licenses. Debian.
  35. ↑ "The DFSG and Software Licenses". Debian wiki.
  36. ↑ Fedora. "Licensing – FedoraProject". Licenses. Fedora Project.
  37. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "Apache License, Version 2.0". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
  38. ↑ "Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 1.x". Retrieved 2013-08-07.
  39. ↑ "Licensing/Beerware". Fedora Project. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
  40. ↑ "3-clause BSD License at OSI".
  41. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments About Them - Common Development and Distribution License". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2006-12-31.
  42. ↑ Michael Larabel (6 October 2015). "Ubuntu Is Planning To Make The ZFS File-System A "Standard" Offering". Phoronix.
  43. ↑ Dustin Kirkland (18 February 2016). "ZFS Licensing and Linux". Ubuntu Insights. Canonical.
  44. ↑ Are GPLv2 and CDDL incompatible? on hansenpartnership.com by James E.J. Bottomley "What the above analysis shows is that even though we presumed combination of GPLv2 and CDDL works to be a technical violation, there’s no way actually to prosecute such a violation because we can’t develop a convincing theory of harm resulting. Because this makes it impossible to take the case to court, effectively it must be concluded that the combination of GPLv2 and CDDL, provided you’re following a GPLv2 compliance regime for all the code, is allowable." (23 February 2016)
  45. ↑ Moglen, Eben; Choudhary, Mishi (26 February 2016). "The Linux Kernel, CDDL and Related Issues".
  46. ↑ GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux on sfconservancy.org by Bradley M. Kuhn and Karen M. Sandler (February 25, 2016)
  47. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation".
  48. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation".
  49. ↑ "Frequently Answered Questions". opensource.org. CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved
  50. ↑ "Copyfree Licenses".
  51. ↑ "Re: Creative Commons CC0".
  52. ↑ "License information".
  53. ↑ "Licensing:Main".
  54. ↑ creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3
  55. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "Educational Community License 2.0". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
  56. ↑ : "We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software."
  57. 1 2 "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?". gnu.org. Retrieved 3 June 2014. 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.
  58. ↑
  59. ↑
  60. ↑ debian on gfdl
  61. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "A Quick Guide to GPLv3". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
  62. ↑ Mozilla Foundation. "MPL 2.0 FAQ". Licenses. Mozilla Foundation.
  63. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation".
  64. ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation".
  65. ↑ "Frequently Answered Questions".
  66. ↑ "Licensing:Main".
  67. ↑ "OSI Board Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, March 4, 2009".
  68. ↑ Free Software Foundation. "XFree86 1.1 License". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, April 28, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.