Comparison of free and open-source software licenses

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

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

While the terms "free software license" and "open-source license" are both in wide use and usually interchangeable, "FOSS license" as both kinds unifying term exists. 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] 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.[3][4] 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.[5]

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 ? ? ? ?
Apache License Apache Software Foundation 2.0 2004 Permissive[6] Permissive[6] Permissive[6] Yes[6] Yes[6] Permissive[6] No[6]
Apple Public Source License Apple Computer 2.0 2003August 6, 2003 Permissive ? Limited ? ? ? ?
Artistic License Larry Wall 2.0 2000 With restrictions ? With restrictions ? ? ? ?
Beerware Poul-Henning Kamp 42 1987 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Berkeley Database License Oracle Corporation ? 2008February 7, 2008 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
BSD License Regents of the University of California 3.0 ? Permissive[7] Permissive[7] Permissive[7] Manually[7] Yes[7] Permissive[7] Manually[7]
Boost Software License ? 1.0 2003August 17, 2003 Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
CeCILL CEA / CNRS / INRIA 2.0 2005May 21, 2005 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Common Development and Distribution License Sun Microsystems 1.0 2004-12December 1, 2004 Permissive ? Limited ? ? ? ?
Common Public License IBM 1.0 2001May 2001 Copylefted ? Copylefted ? ? ? ?
Cryptix General License Cryptix Foundation ? 1995 Permissive Permissive Permissive Manually Yes ? Manually
Eclipse Public License Eclipse Foundation 1.0 2004-02February 2004 Limited[8] Limited[8] Limited[8] Yes[8] Yes[8] Limited[8] Manually[8]
Educational Community License ? 1.0 ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Eiffel Forum License NICE 2 2002 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
EUPL European Commission 1.1 2009January 2009 Limited ? With an explicit compatibility list ? ? ? ?
GNU Affero General Public License Free Software Foundation 3.0 2007 GNU GPLv3 only[9] Copylefted[10] Copylefted[10] Yes[11] Copylefted[11] Copylefted[10] Yes[11]
GNU General Public License Free Software Foundation 3.0 2007June 2007 GPLv3 compatible only[12][13] Copylefted[10] Copylefted[10] Yes[14] Yes[14] Copylefted[10] Yes[14]
GNU Lesser General Public License Free Software Foundation 3.0 2007June 2007 With restrictions[15] Copylefted[10] Copylefted[10] Yes[16] Yes Copylefted[10] Yes[16]
IBM Public License IBM 1.0 1999August 1999 Copylefted ? Copylefted ? ? ? ?
Intel Open Source License Intel Corporation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
ISC license Internet Systems Consortium ? 2003June 2003 Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
LaTeX Project Public License LaTeX project 1.3c ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
MIT license / X11 license MIT N/A 1988 Permissive[17] Permissive[17] Permissive[17] Manually[17] Yes[17] Permissive[17] Manually[17]
Mozilla Public License Mozilla Foundation 2.0 2012January 3, 2012 Permissive[18] Copylefted[18] Copylefted[18] Yes[18] Yes[18] Copylefted[18] No[18]
Netscape Public License Netscape 1.1 ? Limited ? Limited ? ? ? ?
Open Software License Lawrence Rosen 3.0 2005 Permissive ? Copylefted ? ? ? ?
OpenSSL license OpenSSL Project ? ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
PHP License PHP Group 3.01 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Python Software Foundation License Python Software Foundation 2 ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Q Public License Trolltech ? ? Limited ? Limited ? ? ? ?
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 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
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 ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
XCore Open Source License
also separate "Hardware License Agreement"		 XMOS ? 2011February 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 ? ? Permissive ? Permissive ? ? ? ?
Zope Public License Zope Foundation 2.1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

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.

License and version FSF approval
[19]		 GPL (v3) compatibility
[20][21][22][23][24]		 OSI approval
[25]		 Copyfree approval
[26][27]		 Debian approval
[28][29]		 Fedora approval
[30]
Academic Free License Yes No Yes No No Yes
Apache License 1.x Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Apache License 2.0 Yes GPLv3 only[31] Yes No Yes Yes
Apple Public Source License 1.x No[32] No Yes No No No
Apple Public Source License 2.0 Yes No Yes No No Yes
Artistic License 1.0 No[note 1] No Yes No Yes No
Artistic License 2.0 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Beerware 42 No No No Yes No Yes[33]
Berkeley Database License Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Original BSD license Yes No No[34] No Yes Yes
Modified BSD license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Boost Software License Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
CeCILL Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Common Development and Distribution License Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Common Public License Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Creative Commons Zero Yes[35] Yes[36] No[37] Yes[38] Partial[39][40] Yes[41]
Cryptix General License Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Eclipse Public License Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Educational Community License Yes Yes[42] Yes No No Yes
Eiffel Forum License 2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
GNU Affero General Public License Yes Yes[9][43] Yes No Yes Yes
GNU General Public License v2 Yes No[note 2][44] Yes No Yes Yes
GNU General Public License v3 Yes Yes[note 3][44] Yes No Yes Yes
GNU Lesser General Public License Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
IBM Public License Yes No Yes No[27] Yes Yes
Intel Open Source License Yes Yes Yes No No No
ISC license Yes[45] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
LaTeX Project Public License Yes No Yes No[27] Yes Yes
Microsoft Public License Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Microsoft Reciprocal License Yes No Yes No No Yes
MIT license / X11 license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mozilla Public License 1.1 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Mozilla Public License 2.0 Yes Yes[note 4][46] Yes No Yes Yes
NASA Open Source Agreement No No Yes No Unknown No
Netscape Public License Yes No No No No Yes
Open Software License Yes No Yes No No Yes
OpenSSL license Yes No No No Yes Yes
PHP License Yes No Yes No Yes Partial
Python Software Foundation License 2.0.1; 2.1.1 and newer Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Q Public License Yes No Yes No No Yes
Reciprocal Public License 1.5 No No Yes No No No
Sun Industry Standards Source License Yes No Yes No No Yes
Sun Public License Yes No Yes No No Yes
Sybase Open Watcom Public License No No Yes No No No
W3C Software Notice and License Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) Yes[note 5] Yes No[47] Yes Yes Yes
XFree86 1.1 License Yes Yes[48] No No No No
zlib/libpng license Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Zope Public License 1.0 Yes No No No No Yes
Zope Public License 2.0 Yes Yes Yes No 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

References

  1. ↑ Open source licenses - Licenses by Name on opensource.org
  2. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ "Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement", Free Software Foundation, Inc
  4. ↑ "What is Free Software", Free Software Foundation, Inc
  5. ↑ 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."
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 [1]: section 13 of the GNU AGPLv3 license
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 [2]: GNU licenses copyleft
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. ↑ [3]: If library is under GPLv3
  13. ↑ [4]: Linking with the GNU GPLv3
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. ↑ [5]: the section 4 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  19. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  20. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  21. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  22. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  23. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  24. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  25. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  26. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  28. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  30. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  31. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  32. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  33. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  34. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  35. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  36. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  37. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  38. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  39. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  40. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  41. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  42. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  43. ↑ [6]: "We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software."
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  45. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  46. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  47. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  48. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses&oldid=359614"