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.
Free Documentation Licenses
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.
Licenses for Other Works
- Despite the name, it is not clear whether this license wouldqualify as “open source”.
- It differs from earlier versions as it does not include specificreferences to Unicode.
- If the package says that some fonts inthe package may not be modified, then the package is nonfree.Otherwise the package is free.
- These two licenses are frequentlyconfused, as the Open Content License is often referred to as the“OPL”.
- This license does not qualify as free, because there arerestrictions on distributing modified versions.
- There is no legal requirement to register your copyright with anyone;simply writing the program makes it copyrighted.
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.
If you are a betory casino bonus university student, we recommend you request thedisclaimer at an early stage inwriting the program to reduce resistance. This is a brief explanation of how to place a program under the GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License, or GNU Affero General Public License. This page is licensed under a CreativeCommons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
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.
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.
Licenses for Fonts
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.
- If you are releasing your program under the GNU AGPL, and it caninteract with users over a network, the program should offer its source tothose users in some way.
- You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for theprogram.
- This is a free software license, but incompatible with the GPL,for the same reasons as the Jabber Open SourceLicense.
- This is a lax, fairly permissive non-copyleft free softwarelicense with practicalproblems like those of the original BSD license, includingincompatibility with the GNU GPL.
- It is compatible with allversions of the GNU GPL; however, like all CClicenses, it shouldnot be used on software.
- This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms suchas the right to make and use private changes.
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.
License
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.
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.
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 notice
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 are writing, don't give up hope.
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.