Quickly add a free MyWikiBiz directory listing!

Software license

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday March 19, 2010

Jump to: navigation, search

Your search has been for:  
Software license

Jump to:
Key Topics || In-Depth || Possibly Useful || Selected Sources || Dig Deeper



A software license is a contract between a software publisher and a consumer who uses the software (end-user).[1]
Without acceptance of the license, the end-user may not use the software at all. One example of such a proprietary software license is the license for Microsoft Windows. As is usually the case with proprietary software licenses, this license contains an extensive list of activities which are restricted, such as: reverse engineering, simultaneous use of the software by multiple users, and publication of benchmarks or performance tests.[1]
The Open Software License is a free software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL in several ways.[2]



  • A software license grants an end-user permission to use one or more copies of software in ways which would otherwise be prohibited by law.(More...)



A software license grants an end-user permission to use one or more copies of software in ways which would otherwise be prohibited by law. Such a license is required if the end-user wishes to make use of a copy of software, but where such a use would constitute infringement of the software publisher's exclusive rights under copyright law. [1] Only a very limited set of well-defined rights are conceded to the end-user. As such, it is typical of proprietary software license agreements to include many terms which specifically prohibit certain uses of the software, often including uses which would otherwise be allowed under copyright law. The most significant effect of this form of licensing is that, if ownership of the software remains with the software publisher, then the end-user must accept the software license.[1] The hallmark of proprietary software licenses is that the software publisher grants a license to use one or more copies of software, but that ownership of those copies remains with the software publisher (hence use of the term " proprietary "). One consequence of this feature of proprietary software licenses is that virtually all rights regarding the software are reserved by the software publisher.[1] Software licenses can generally be fit into one of two distinct categories: proprietary licenses and open source licenses. The features that distinguish the two forms of licensing are significant in terms of the effect they have on the end-user's rights.[1] Open source software licenses typically grant to the end-user extra rights, which would otherwise be reserved by the software publisher.[1] The software license acts as a promise from the software publisher to not sue the end-user for engaging in activities that would normally be considered exclusive rights belonging to the software publisher.[1] A software license is a contract between a software publisher and a consumer who uses the software (end-user).[1] Virtually all mass-produced software sold at retail includes a clickwrap license which the end-user is forced to accept before the software can be installed or otherwise used with a computer. Courts in the United States have found that an end-user of software who voluntarily accepts such a clickwrap license is legally bound to abide by the terms of the software license agreement, despite the fact that the end-user is the owner of the copy.[1] If the end-user wishes to exercise any of the additional rights granted by an open source license (such as the right to redistribute the software), then the end-user must accept, and be bound by, the software license.[1] When considered in the context of mass-produced software sold at retail, there are significant problems with the proprietary form of software licenses.[1] The law is not clear on what an end-user's rights are when confronted by a clickwrap or other type of proprietary software license agreement on a copy of software owned by the end-user.[1] With open source licenses, in contrast to proprietary software licenses, ownership of a particular copy of the software does not remain with the software publisher.[1]

Without acceptance of the license, the end-user may not use the software at all. One example of such a proprietary software license is the license for Microsoft Windows. As is usually the case with proprietary software licenses, this license contains an extensive list of activities which are restricted, such as: reverse engineering, simultaneous use of the software by multiple users, and publication of benchmarks or performance tests.[1] Taxation without representation is pretty tame stuff compared to the terms of software licenses.[3]

Recent versions of the Open Software License have a term which requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to the license.[2] We urge you not to use the Open Software License for software you write. There is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license. The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache license.[2]

Most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. This is the previous version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license.[2] Most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. This is the latest version of the LGPL: a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with GPLv3.[2]

The CeCILL is a free software license, explicitly compatible with the GNU GPL. The text of the CeCILL uses a couple of biased terms that ought to be avoided: "intellectual property" (see this article this article ) and "protection" (see this article this article ); this decision was unfortunate, because reading the license tends to spread the presuppositions of those terms. This does not cause any particular problem for the programs released under the CeCILL.[2] Some continue to use the X11 license X11 license X11 license. This is a free software license, and compatible with the GPL. This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license which is compatible with the GNU GPL.[2] The Open Software License makes it very difficult to develop software using the ordinary tools of free software development. For this reason, and because it is incompatible with the GPL, we recommend that no version of the OSL be used for any software.[2] There is no reason not to use OpenSSL and applications that work with OpenSSL. This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.[2] Unfortunately, it has a choice of law clause which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This is a free software license. It has a couple of requirements that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL, including strong restrictions on the use of Condor-related names, and a condition that you must comply with United States export laws.[2] We urge you not to use the NPL. This is similar to the Mozilla Public License: a free software license incompatible with the GNU GPL. This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few requirements (in sections 4 and 5) that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL. Note that the latest version of OpenLDAP has a different license different license that is compatible with the GNU GPL.[2] Because of that, it is a free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL, but not a strong copyleft. This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your package GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible.[2] Section 9.4 of the CeCILL commits the program's developers to certain forms of cooperation with the users, if someone attacks the program with a patent. You might look at that as a problem for the developer; however, if you are sure you would want to cooperate with the users in those ways anyway, then it isn't a problem for you. This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is very similar to the X11 license.[2] The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your "original creation". Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this. We urge you not to use this license.[2] It permits use only in "normal circumstances". It does not allow distribution of source code without binaries. Its permissions lapse after 50 years. This is not a free software license, because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do.[2] Versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 are not free software licenses (follow the link for more explanation) not free software licenses opnbrktfollow the link for more explanationclsbrkt. Please don't use these licenses, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under them.[2] We focus here on licenses that are often mistaken for free software licenses but are, in fact, not free software licenses. We have provided links to these licenses when we can do so without violating our general policy: that we do not make links to sites that promote, encourage or facilitate the use of non-free software packages.[2] The license requires you to inform SGI of legal problems with the software. This violates your privacy rights, and can conflict with professional confidentiality requirements, such as attorney-client privilege. As applied to software, this is not a free software license because it requires all users in whatever country to obey U.S. export control laws.[2] The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing free software license that meets your needs. We try to list the most commonly encountered free software license on this page, but cannot list them all; we'll try our best to answer questions about free software licenses whether or not they are listed here.[2] Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license.[2] The Open Software License is a free software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL in several ways.[2] The following licenses are free software licenses, but are not compatible not compatible with the GNU GPL. The Affero General Public License is a free software license, copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL. It consists of the GNU GPL version 2, with one additional section that Affero added with FSF approval.[2]

Version 2.0 of the APSL Version 2.0 of the APSL is a free software license. We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear.[2] For the same reason, we have avoided naming the programs for which a license is used, unless we think that for specific reasons it won't backfire. Despite its name, this is not a free software license because it does not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simply packaging software licensed under it with anything for which a charge is made.[2] The license of PINE is not a free software license because it mostly prohibits the distribution of modified versions. It also restricts the media that can be used for selling copies selling copies.[2] If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the FreeBSD license is a reasonable choice.[2] If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. It is risky to recommend use of "the BSD license", because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license original BSD license original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.[2] As applied to fonts, it also does not permit modification. It has a requirement for users to indemnify the developer, which is enough to make many users think twice about using it at all. This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms such as publication of modified versions. Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under it. This is not a free software license.[2] If you are a United States citizen, please write to NASA and call for the use of a truly free software license. This is not a free software license, because it requires sending every published modified version to a specific initial developer. There are also some other words in this license whose meaning we're not sure of that might also be problematic.[2] More explanation. This license is also sometimes called the "4-clause BSD license".) This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause".[2]

Of course, we urge you to avoid using non-free software licenses, and to avoid non-free software in general. There is no way we could list all the known non-free software licenses here; after all, every proprietary software company has its own.[2]

Please note that this site may not include Retail Software License Terms for software that Microsoft no longer supports.[4] The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE is not sold, and instead is only licensed for use, strictly in accordance with this document. The hardware is protected by various patents, and is sold, but this LICENSE does not cover that sale, since it may not necessarily be sold as a package with the SOFTWARE. This LICENSE sets forth the terms and conditions of the SOFTWARE LICENSE only.[5]

Back to Top



Section Contents:
  • The Eclipse Public License is similar to the Common Public License Common Public License Common Public License, and our comments on the CPL apply equally to the EPL. The only change is that the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patent infringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'd program.(More...)

  • What you get for your money is the privilege (not right) to use a software package in accordance with the conditions of the license.(More...)



The Eclipse Public License is similar to the Common Public License Common Public License Common Public License, and our comments on the CPL apply equally to the EPL. The only change is that the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patent infringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'd program. This is a free software license. [2] This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL. Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in the older version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions.[6] In terms of open source licenses, the end-user clearly retains the right to use the software if the license is rejected, since ownership of the software is not disputed. With proprietary licenses, where the software publisher claims to retain ownership of the software, this is an area of ongoing dispute.[1] A primary consequence of the open source form of licensing is that acceptance of open source licenses is essentially optional -- the end-user may use the software without accepting the license.[1] The end-user of the software is the owner of the copy and, pursuant to section 117 of the Copyright Act, a license is not technically required in order for the end-user to use the software with a computer.[1]

Contrary to the findings of numerous courts in the United States, proprietary licenses typically still assert that the software is specifically not sold.[1]

Most newly written free software licences since the late 1990s include some form of patent retaliation clauses. These measures ensure that one's rights under the licence (such as to redistribution), may be terminated if one attempts to enforce specific patent monopolies, under noted circumstances, as specified in the licence. The Apple Public Source License may terminate a user's rights if said user embarks on litigation proceedings against them due to patent litigation.[7] Examples of licences which provoked debate include the 1.x series of the Apple Public Source License, which were accepted by the Open Source Initiative but not by the Free Software Foundation or Debian, the RealNetworks Public Source License, which was accepted by Open Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation but not by Debian, and in 2007, the Common Public Attribution License, which was approved by Open Source Initiative only.[7]

The only notable cases where Debian and Free Software Foundation disagree are over the Artistic License and the GNU Free Documentation License.[7] Debian accepts the original Artistic License as being a free software licence, but FSF disagrees. This has very little impact however since the Artistic License is almost always used in a dual-licence setup, along with the GNU General Public License. Regarding the GNU Free Documentation License, Debian decided to apply the DFSG to all content, not only software, and so documentation licences must also be examined against these guidelines.[7] Early licences include that of TeX and that of X11. In the mid-80s, the GNU project produced individual free software licences for each of its software packages. These were all replaced in 1989 with version 1 of the GNU General Public License (GPL).[7] The list distinguishes between free software licences that are compatible or incompatible with the FSF licence of choice, the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft licence.[7]

Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL; however, it is fine to use for other kinds of data. This is a free and copyleft license meant for artistic works. It permits commercial distribution, but any larger work including the copylefted work must be free.[2] The license prohibits redistribution, prohibits commercial use of the software, and can be revoked.[2] Distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the license and would subject you to possible termination of the license.[2] We generally recommend the latest version of the LGPL the latest version of the LGPL, for special circumstances only for special circumstances only. This is a free software, copyleft license. Its terms effectively consist of the terms of GPLv3, with an additional paragraph in section 13 to allow users who interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that program.[2] We urge you not to use the ZPL version 1 for software you write. There is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as previous versions of Zope.[2]

Back to Top

What you get for your money is the privilege (not right) to use a software package in accordance with the conditions of the license. That privilege may be revoked by the publisher at any time, with or without cause. [3] Moving your computer platform from Windows to Linux and using Open Source software packages in place of commercial software means you don't have to buy licenses, don't have to track them, and nobody is going to come knocking on your door. To help you decide if this avenue is practical for your company we have published two articles Should Your Business Use Linux Should Your Business Use Linux and Linux Linux.[3] UCITA further reduces you rights and gives new rights to the software publishers, particularly the right to invade your computers and networks without notice and without your permission, and to disable software for any real or imagined license infraction[3] The Consequences The maximum penalty is $150,000 per license "deficiency". Typically, this is negotiated down, and a company found deficient at around $8,000 will pay a penalty of around $85,000 (and have to buy the $8,000 in software too). Information services for the city of Virginia Beach, VA were practically shut down for over a month and 50 employees were tied up trying to put its licensing in order to answer a random audit demand by Microsoft.[3]

Use the drop down boxes or the search function to locate the license terms for software licensed to you by Microsoft.[4] If you obtained the software pre-loaded on a device from a manufacturer, consult the license terms that came with the software on that device.[4] The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA). The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.[8] Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else. This LICENSE will automatically terminate if Customer fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof. In such event, Customer must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE and all of its component parts.[5] The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Accordingly, Customer is required to treat the SOFTWARE like any other copyrighted material, except as otherwise allowed pursuant to this LICENSE and that it may make one copy of the SOFTWARE solely for backup or archive purposes. This LICENSE shall be deemed to have been made in, and shall be construed pursuant to, the laws of the State of California.[5]

SUCH DAMAGE. The Apache Software Foundation only provides its software through online download mechanisms. Any organisation is free and welcome to create a CD-ROM containing our packages and redistribute them that way for free or for fee -- subject to the terms of our license.[6] The various project licenses differ from each other, and the master Apache Software Foundation license, only in terms of attribution requirements and the listing of marks.[6]

You may distribute the result under a different license, but you need to acknowledge the use of the Foundation's software.[6] This page answers most of the common queries that we receive about our license, licensing use of the software, and packaging or redistributing it.[6]

This work (and included software, documentation such as READMEs, or other related items) is being provided by the copyright holders under the following license. By obtaining, using and/or copying this work, you (the licensee) agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the following terms and conditions. The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the redistributed or derivative work.[9]

Back to Top


Section Contents:
  • Supporters of the BSD licence argue that it is more free than the GPL because it grants the right to do anything with the source code, second only to software in the public domain.(More...)

  • Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.(More...)



    • Supporters of the BSD licence argue that it is more free than the GPL because it grants the right to do anything with the source code, second only to software in the public domain. [7] Code under the GPL cannot be relicensed under the BSD licence without securing the consent of all copyright holders, as the BSD licence is not copyleft and therefore GPL is "BSD-incompatible". Existing free software BSDs tend to avoid including software licensed under the GPL in the core operating system, or the base system, except as a last resort when alternatives are non-existent or vastly less capable, such as with GCC.[7] GPL supporters claim that mandating derivative works remain free fosters the growth of free software and requires equal participation by all users. Developers who use GPL code in their product must make the source code available to anyone, but only when they share or sell the Object code.[7]

    Licences of software packages containing contradictory requirements, render it impossible to combine source code from such packages in order to create new software packages.[7] If one licence says " modified versions must mention the developers in any advertising materials ", and another licence says " modified versions cannot contain additional attribution requirements ", then, if someone combined a software package which uses one licence with a software package which uses the other, it would be impossible to distribute the combination because the two requirements cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. These two packages would be licence-incompatible.[7] As of late 2006, no free software licences contain explicit language prohibiting additional restrictions being enforced by digital rights management (DRM). Version 3 of the GNU GPL does, however, include such specific language in order to prohibit "Tivoisation" in certain cases.[7]

    Version 2 of the GPL, released in 1991, went on to become the most widely used free software licence.[7]

    OSI's list is different from FSF's list because the two organisations have reviewed different sets of licences. There are a few licences that OSI have approved that the FSF has not, and vice versa, but these are licences that are used by niche projects or none at all. For more details on this topic, see List of OSI approved software licences.[7] FSF say that documentation is qualitatively different from software and is subject to different requirements. The end result of a long discussion and the eventual vote in Debian is that the works licensed under the GFDL are considered free as long as they do not contain unmodifiable sections (what the GFDL calls " Invariant Sections ").[7] Restrictions on private use of the software ("use restrictions") are generally unacceptable.[7] The vast majority of free software uses licences which are undisputedly free software licences, however there have been many debates over whether or not certain other licences are free software licences.[7] Since the mid 1980s, free software licences written by Richard Stallman pioneered a concept known as copyleft. Ensuing copyleft provisions stated that when modified versions of free software are distributed, they must be distributed under the same terms as the original software.[7] A free software licence is a software licence which grants recipients rights to modify and redistribute the software which would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law.[7] A free software licence grants, to the recipients, freedoms in the form of permissions to modify or distribute copyrighted work.[7] Examples include prohibiting the software to be used for military purposes, for comparison or benchmarking, for ethically-questionable means, or in commercial organisations. For this reason, such licences are not considered free software by the standards of the FSF, OSI, Debian, or the BSD-based distributions.[7] The majority of free software licences require that modified software not claim to be unmodified.[7] The right to make closed-source code is therefore not included in the Free Software Foundation's "four freedoms of free software": using, studying, copying, and distributing modifications of the code.[7] Essentially, the BSD licence's only requirement is to acknowledge the original authors, and poses no restrictions on how the source code may be used. BSD code can find its way into proprietary software that only acknowledge the authors.[7] The nature of BSD has encouraged the inclusion of well-developed standard code into proprietary software. GPL supporters claim that this is more a form of power than a necessary freedom.[7]

    The main difference is the belief that the copyleft licences, particularly the GNU General Public License (GPL), are too complicated and have restrictions which are undesirable.[7]

    What is not clear is what, if any, rights the end-user retains if the terms of the license agreement are rejected.[1] In the United States, Section 117 of the Copyright Act gives the owner of a particular copy of software the explicit right to use the software with a computer, even if use of the software with a computer requires the making of incidental copies or adaptations (acts which could otherwise potentially constitute copyright infringement). As such, the owner of a copy of computer software is legally entitled to use that copy of software.[1] While ownership in a particular copy is transferred, ownership of the copyright remains with the software publisher.[1] Retail sales of software have been repeatedly deemed by courts in the United States to be a normal sale of goods within the meaning of the UCC. Accordingly, as with the sale of all types of goods, ownership of a copy of software transfers to the buyer in a retail transaction.[1]

    Your Rights Software licensing exempts software publishers from all liability under consumer protection law.[3] Free Republic Free Republic - Microsoft orders Virginia Beach, VA to prove software ownership. ZDNet eWeek ZDNet eWeek - Open Licensing: their gain, your pain.[3] The BSA, through intense publicity, has become the more prominent organization. Other software companies now contribute to the BSA for their own protection (early BSA raids tended to leave behind an "all Microsoft" shop regardless of who's software was originally infringed), but it operates essentially as Microsoft's private police force.[3] We're lucky to make a dime on a straight software sale, especially Microsoft products - you have to have a sweetheart deal (see last paragraph). This article is simply to help you understand your rights, the risks and the consequences.[3]

    You no longer have use of the software or access to any of your data or business records. Will users accept these new terms? Yes.[3] The SPA (Software Publisher's Association) was the original anti-piracy organization, formed and financed by many of the larger software publishers.[3]

    If the publisher decides not to support a product any more, or sell more licenses, you have no recourse.[3] If you have 9 computers that run Office, but no more than 4 ever run Office at the same time, you still need to buy 9 licenses.[3]

    We also recommend the GNU FDL for dictionaries, encyclopedias, and any other works that provide information for practical use. This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and entertainment works, and educational works.[2] Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a Creative Commons license" is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works.[2] Please see additional comments about Creative Commons licenses just above. This is a free and copyleft license meant for general data.[2]

    For clarity, it is better not to use the abbreviation "OPL" for either license. It is worth spelling their names in full to make sure people understand what you say. This is not a free documentation license.[2] The following licenses qualify as free documentation free documentation licenses. This is a license intended for use on copylefted free documentation.[2]

    The new section, 2(d), covers the distribution of application programs through web services or computer networks. This license has been succeeded by the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 GNU Affero General Public License version 3 ; please use that instead.[2]

    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.[2] Your license can be terminated through no fault of yours, under section 8/3. It makes compliance with export control laws a condition of the license.[2] The patent license is voided by any modification, no matter how small, of the pertinent code.[2] Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed.[2]

    Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL compatible with the GNU GPL. Unless otherwise specified, compatible licenses are compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3.[2]

    If you have written a program that uses QPL-covered library (called FOO), and you want to release your program under the GNU GPL, you can easily do that. As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the FOO library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from FOO. You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the program.[2] We recommend that you avoid using the QPL for anything that you write, and use QPL-covered software packages only when absolutely necessary. This avoidance no longer applies to Qt itself, since Qt is now also released under the GNU GPL. Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take a GPL-covered program and QPL-covered program and link them together, no matter how.[2] Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.[2]

    The GNU GPL can be used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of "source code" refers to in the particular case.[2]

    This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. We recommend you do not use this license. Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Publication License Open Publication License. The practice of abbreviating "Open Content License" as "OPL" leads to confusion between them.[2] Since a simple Hello World program will satisfy the requirement, it is harmless. Neither we nor SIL recommend the use of this license for anything other than fonts.[2]

    Microsoft has other licenses which it describes as "Shared Source", some of which have different restrictions. This license is non-free because it places various limitations on the kinds of modifications you can make.[2]

    Back to Top

    Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code. [5] The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts.[5] Use of NVIDIA's products requires three elements: the SOFTWARE, the hardware on a graphics controller board, and a personal computer.[5] All software developed by all projects of The Apache Software Foundation is freely available without charge from the Foundation's Web sites. This is specified in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation Articles of Incorporation.[6] We recommend that you obtain your own legal advice so you know exactly what you are getting yourself into. If you adopt these agreements for your purposes, you have to make sure that the phrase 'Apache Software Foundation' or any confusingly similar references or parts that specifically refer to the Apache organisation do not appear in your version of the agreements (except to note that your version is derived and differs from the original provided by the ASF).[6]

    No. We do not distinguish between personal, internal, or commercial use of our software.[6] You can give your modified code away for free, or sell it, or keep it to yourself, or whatever you like. Just remember that the original code is still covered by the Apache license and you must comply with its terms.[6]

    This is the original Apache License which applies only to older versions of Apache packages (such as version 1.2 of the Web server).[8] All packages produced by the ASF are implicitly licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0, unless otherwise explicitly stated.[8] More developer documentation on how to apply the Apache License to your work can be found in Applying the Apache License, Version 2.0 Applying the Apache License, Version 2.0.[8] The 1.1 version of the Apache License was approved by the ASF in 2000. The primary change from the 1.0 license is in the 'advertising clause' (section 3 of the 1.0 license); derived products are no longer required to include attribution in their advertising materials, only in their documentation.[8]
    Back to Top






Try digging deeper by doing research on a
LARGER SET OF DOCUMENTS:

(Will open in a new window. Your browser must have JavaScript & Cookies enabled.)



Automatically generated multi-source summary has been compiled basing on the
fair use of snippets extracted from original articles, found through the
Google web search.


Retrieved from "http://www.mywikibiz.com/Software_license"
Personal tools