Note that the latest version of OpenLDAP hasa different license that is compatible withthe GNU GPL. This is a free software license that is essentially the same as theMozilla Public License version 1.1. If partof a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any otherGPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the programhas a GPL-compatible license. This is a free software license, but it is incompatible with the GNU GPLbecause of its choice of law clause. The LPPL says that some files, in certain versions of LaTeX, may haveadditional restrictions, which could render them nonfree.
Software Licenses
This is a free software license and is GPL compatible. It is similar to the license of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions. This is a free software license, and compatible with GPLv3.
GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses
Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. We recommend that developers considerusing the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over anetwork. Wegenerally recommend the latest version of theLGPL, for specialcircumstances only. When this is the case,you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. If you are contemplating writing a new license, please also contactus at .
It requires notification of the original developer forpublication of a modified version. The Personal Public License Version 3a is a nonfree license because itdenies some users (organizations, governments, businesses) the fourfreedoms. The Peer-Production License is not a free software license becauseit restricts who can redistribute the program and for what purpose.It also does not give anyone permission to run the program. Free software development depends oncombining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permitthis. The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free softwarelicense because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your“original creation”. A free software license may not arbitrarily deny use of the program to anyone.
Licenses for Works of Practical Use
- The following licensesare free software licenses, butare notcompatible with the GNU GPL.
- It has a copyleft similar to theone found in the Mozilla Public License.
- This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL.Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python (1.6b1,through 2.0 and 2.1) are under a different license (see below).
- It is also ambiguous, since the same people also callthe X11 license “the MIT License,”failing to distinguish them.
- The only change is thatit explicitly offers the option of designating the GNU GPL version 2or later as a “secondary license” for a certain piece ofcode.
- 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.
Code written by employees of the US government is a specialexception, since US copyright law explicitly puts that in the publicdomain; but this does not apply to works that the US pays a company towrite. Some countries allow authors to put code in the public domain, butthat requires explicit action which can vary among jurisdictions. The document with which they do so is calleda free software license. Absent alicense to grant users freedom, they don't have any.
This license does not permit commercial distribution, and only allowscommercial use under certain circumstances. This license was written for use on a Large Language Model(LLM)—something that generates output by patching together snippets of inputdata without understanding what (if anything) the resulting outputmeans. Even if a country cannot enforce its trade regulations where you live, it can ask the program's developer to sue you.
Please note that this license is incompatible with version 2 of the GPL,because of its requirements that apply to all documentation in thedistribution that contain acknowledgements. Laterversions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.1 license. Older versions of XFree86 used the samelicense, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do.
The copyright notice
Additionally, the license excludes certain users—those whose programs or servers are very widely used. Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid anysoftware that has been released under it. Please don't use thislicense, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been releasedunder it. Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any softwarethat has been released under it.
The license of PINE is not a free software license because it mostlyprohibits the distribution of modified versions. Pleasedon't use these licenses, and we urge you to avoid any software that hasbeen released under them. If source code does not carry a license to give users the fouressential freedoms, then unless it has been explicitly and validlyplaced in the public domain, it is not free software. This is a lax, fairly permissive non-copyleft free softwarelicense with practicalproblems like those of the original BSD license, includingincompatibility with the GNU GPL. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs thathave been released under this license.
There are also some other words inthis license whose meaning we're not sure of that might also beproblematic. Section 5.4 prohibitscommercial distribution of the software by itself—and dependingon how you read section 3.4, you may not have permission to distributethe software by itself at all. It places restrictionson the freedom to use the program for any purpose. It also does not apply to other countries, many of betory casino bonus which doallow the state to have a copyright on government writings. Thatis not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightableworks are copyrighted by default. Version 2.0 of the Zope Public License isGPL-compatible.
- The X11 license and the modified BSD license aremore or less equivalent.
- Previous versions of the SGI Free Software License B were not freesoftware licenses, despite their name.
- It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPLversion 3 or any later version, because there is a way to relicenseto the CeCILL v2, and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to relicense to anyversion of the GNU GPL.
- In terms of GPL compatibility, the Eclipse Public License version2.0 is essentially equivalent to version 1.0.
- We focus here on licenses that are often mistaken for freesoftware licenses but are, in fact, not free softwarelicenses.
- For an illustrative example of why you should not combineCDDL-licensed works with the GPL-licensed works, see the FSF’sstatement, Interpreting, enforcing and changing the GNU GPL, as applied tocombining Linux and ZFS.
Why license notices?
Additionally, if you want to use the Unicode Character Databasefiles, please take care to ensure that the files you are using arecovered by this License Agreement only. These are far more common, andwidely recognized in the free software community. These are far morecommon, and widely recognized in the free software community. Please do not use this License Agreement for your own software. If you want to use files covered by this License Agreement in yourown software, that shouldn't be any problem, but we recommend thatyou also include a full copy of its text.
For further information, see our listof frequently asked questions aboutour licenses. 3D-printer plans for decorative objects are artistic works; any of theCreative Commons licenses is ok for them. We recommend the GNU GPL or one of the Creative Commons licensesthat are free such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Because so many licenses meet these criteria, we cannot list themall. If the package says that some fonts inthe package may not be modified, then the package is nonfree.Otherwise the package is free. The licenses below apply to an instantiation of a design in a computerfile, not the artistic design.
However, they all includedclauses that allow you to upgrade to new versions of the license, if youchoose to do so. The SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 is a free softwarelicense. This is a free software license, compatible with the GPL via anexplicit dual-licensing clause.
Despite the name, it is not clear whether this license wouldqualify as “open source”. In addition, it has a requirement for users to indemnify thedeveloper, which is enough to make many users think twice about using itat all. A detaileddiscussion of this license is also available. The PPLshould not be used for software, manuals, or other works that ought tobe free. The PPL has several provisions designed specifically for artisticperformances, and we have nothing against its use for art works;however, people reportedly advocate its use for software too.