Top List Curated by Listnerd
  • Public list
  • Nov 27th 2012
  • 1.183 views
  • 323 votes
  • 323 voters
  • 5%
Best Software License of All Time

More about Best Software License of All Time:

Best Software License of All Time is a public top list created by Listnerd on Rankly.com on November 27th 2012. Items on the Best Software License of All Time top list are added by the Rankly.com community and ranked using our secret ranking sauce. Best Software License of All Time has gotten 1.183 views and has gathered 323 votes from 323 voters. Only owner can add items. Just members can vote.

Best Software License of All Time is a top list in the Technology category on Rankly.com. Are you a fan of Technology or Best Software License of All Time? Explore more top 100 lists about Technology on Rankly.com or participate in ranking the stuff already on the all time Best Software License of All Time top list below.

If you're not a member of Rankly.com, you should consider becoming one. Registration is fast, free and easy. At Rankly.com, we aim to give you the best of everything - including stuff like the Best Software License of All Time list.

Get your friends to vote! Spread this URL or share:

Items just added

    1
    GNU General Public License

    GNU General Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is the most widely used free software license. It was originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU Project. The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. Under this philosophy, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses are the standard examples. The GPL was written by Richard Stallman in 1989 for use with programs released as part of the GNU project. The original GPL was based on a unification of similar licenses used for early versions of GNU Emacs, the GNU Debugger and the GNU C Compiler. These licenses contained similar provisions to the modern GPL, but were specific to each program, rendering them incompatible, despite being the same license. Stallman's goal was to produce one license that could be used for any project, thus making it possible for many projects to share code. As of August
    8.67
    6 votes
    3
    8.80
    5 votes
    4

    KnowledgeTree Public License

    The KnowledgeTree Public License is an open source license based on the Mozilla Public License with additional clauses added relating to branding and copyright notice retention. The KnowledgeTree Document Management System is licensed under the KnowledgeTree Public License. The license authors claim that this is an open source license, but it is not officially approved as such by opensource.org.
    6.67
    6 votes
    6

    Proprietary software

    Proprietary software or closed source software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder. The licensee is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, while restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering. Complementary terms include free software, licensed by the owner under more permissive terms, and public domain software, which is not subject to copyright and can be used for any purpose. Proponents of free and open source software use proprietary or non-free to describe software that is not free or open source. A related, but distinct categorization in the software industry is commercial software which refers to software produced for sale, but without meaning it is closed source. According to Eric S. Raymond, in the Jargon File, "In the language of hackers and users" it is used pejoratively, with the meaning of "inferior" and "a product not conforming to open-systems standards". Until the late 1960s computers—huge and expensive mainframe machines in specially air-conditioned computer rooms—were usually supplied on a lease rather than purchase basis. Service and all software
    6.50
    6 votes
    7

    Eiffel Forum License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Eiffel Forum License (EFL) is a free software license written by NICE, the Non-Profit International Consortium for Eiffel. Version 2 of the license, the latest as of 2008, is the first version to be GPL compatible. EFLv2 has been approved by the OSI, and is approved as a free software license by the FSF. Since this is a published licence it may be referenced from a work using the following simple statement:
    7.60
    5 votes
    8

    FreeBSD Documentation License

    The FreeBSD Documentation License is the license that covers most of the documentation for the FreeBSD operating system. The license is very similar to the 2-clause Simplified BSD License used by the rest of FreeBSD, however, it makes the meanings of "source code" and "compile" less ambiguous in the context of documentation. It also includes a mandatory disclaimer about IEEE and Open Group text in some manual pages. The Free Software Foundation classes this as a free documentation license, stating that "This is a permissive non-copyleft free documentation license that is compatible with the GNU FDL." Based on the FreeBSD Documentation License, the BSD Documentation License was created to contain terms more generic to most projects as well as reintroducing the 3rd clause that restricts the use of documentation for endorsement purposes (as shown in the New BSD License).
    6.80
    5 votes
    9

    LaTeX Project Public License

    The LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) is a software license originally written for the LaTeX system. Software distributed under the terms of the LPPL can be regarded as free software, however it is not copylefted. Besides the LaTeX base system, the LPPL is also used for most third-party LaTeX packages. Software projects other than LaTeX rarely use it. The LPPL grew from Donald Knuth's original license for TeX, which states that the source code for TeX may be used for any purpose but a system built with it can only be called 'TeX' if it strictly conforms to his canonical program. The incentive for this proviso was to ensure that documents written for TeX will be readable for the foreseeable future – and indeed, TeX and its extensions will still compile documents written from the early 1980s to produce output exactly as intended. Quoting Frank Mittelbach, the main author of the license: "LPPL attempts to preserve the fact that something like LaTeX is a language which is used for communication, that is if you write a LaTeX document you expect to be able to send it to me and to work at my end like it does at yours". The most unusual part of the LPPL — and equally the most
    6.80
    5 votes
    10

    Artistic License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Artistic License refers most commonly to the original Artistic License (version 1.0), a software license used for certain free and open source software packages, most notably the standard Perl implementation and most CPAN modules, which are dual-licensed under the Artistic License and the GNU General Public License (GPL). The original Artistic License was written by Larry Wall. The name of the license is a reference to the concept of artistic license. The terms of the Artistic License 1.0 were at issue in a 2007 federal district court decision in the US which was criticized by some for suggesting that FOSS-like licenses could only be enforced through contract law rather than through copyright law, in contexts where contract damages would be difficult to establish. On appeal, a federal appellate court "determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions". The case was remanded to the District Court which did not apply the superior court's criteria (on the grounds that in the interim, the Supreme Court had changed the applicable law). However, this left undisturbed the finding that a free and open source license nonetheless has economic
    9.33
    3 votes
    11

    ISC licence

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The ISC license is a permissive free software license written by the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC). It is functionally equivalent to the Simplified BSD License, with language that was made unnecessary by the Berne convention removed. Initially used for the ISC's own software releases, it has since become the preferred license of OpenBSD (starting June 2003), among other projects. Before accepting the license as a free software license, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) asked for clarification of the text. In July 2007, as a result, "and distribute" was changed to "and/or distribute". A template of this license is: Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
    6.40
    5 votes
    12
    9.00
    3 votes
    13

    Reciprocal Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Reciprocal Public License (RPL) is a software license inspired by the GNU General Public License (GPL) but authored to explicitly remove what some have referred to as the GPL's "privacy loophole"—an aspect of the GPL which allows recipients of GPL'd code to: The "R" in RPL stands for "Reciprocal" specifically to call out that this license requires software developers and companies to reciprocate for the benefits they derive from RPL'd software by releasing any extensions or improvements they make regardless of whether those changes deploy internally or to third parties. Because of its "viral" nature, the RPL is often found in dual-licensing models in which it is paired with more traditional closed-source licenses. This strategy allows software companies who use this model to present customers with a "pay with cash or pay with code" option, ensuring either the growth of the software directly through code contributions or indirectly through cash which can be used to fund further development. The RPL was written to conform to the requirements of the Open Source Initiative to ensure that it met the goals for an Open Source license, however because of its requirements for
    7.50
    4 votes
    14

    Cryptix General License

    The Cryptix General License is in use by the Cryptix project, well known for their Java Cryptography Extension. It is a modified version of the BSD license, with similarly liberal terms. The Free Software Foundation states that it is a permissive free software license compatible with the GNU General Public License.
    7.25
    4 votes
    15

    Open Gaming License

    The Open Game License (or OGL) may be used by tabletop role-playing game developers to grant permission to modify, copy, and redistribute some of the content designed for their games, notably game mechanics. However, they must share-alike copies and derivative works. The OGL describes two forms of content: Open Game Content (or OGC) ...the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.... Product Identity (or PI) ...product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments,
    7.25
    4 votes
    16

    Common Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    In computing, the CPL (Common Public License) is a free software / open-source software license published by IBM. The Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative have approved the license terms of the CPL. The CPL has the stated aims of supporting and encouraging collaborative open-source development while still retaining the ability to use the CPL'd content with software licensed under other licenses, including many proprietary licenses. The Eclipse Public License (EPL) consists of a slightly modified version of the CPL. The CPL has some terms that resemble those of the GNU General Public License (GPL), but some key differences exist. A similarity relates to distribution of a modified computer program: under either license (CPL or GPL), one must make the source code of a modified program available to others. CPL, like the GNU Lesser General Public License, allows non-CPL-licensed software to link to a library under CPL without requiring the linked source code to be made available to the licensee. CPL lacks compatibility with both versions of the GPL because it has a "choice of law" section in section 7, which restricts legal disputes to a certain court. Another source of
    8.67
    3 votes
    17

    Expert

    This type of license if for those using the software for work and/or on a larger scale.
    8.67
    3 votes
    18

    Lucent Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Lucent Public License is an open-source license created by Lucent Technologies. It has been released in two versions: Version 1.0 and 1.02. While the Lucent Public License is not one of the more popular open-source licenses, a number of products have been released under it. It has been approved by the Open Source Initiative. The Free Software Foundation states: “This is a free software license, but it is incompatible with the GNU GPL because of its choice of law clause. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license.”
    8.67
    3 votes
    19
    8.67
    3 votes
    20

    Intel Open Source License

    The Intel Open Source license is identical to the BSD license with the following section added The extra section does not add to the terms of the license, rather it reminds users of U.S. export laws. As such the IOSL is functionally identical to the BSD license, and so is GPL compatible (i.e., software distributed under the IOSL can be relicensed as GPL, and so can be included in GPL software). Intel has voluntarily retracted the license from the OSI list of open source licenses to prevent license proliferation. Intel has ceased to use or recommend this license.
    7.00
    4 votes
    22

    Zope Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    Zope Public License is a free software license, used primarily for the Zope application server software. The license is similar to the well-known BSD license, however the ZPL also adds clauses prohibiting trademark use and requiring documentation of all changes.
    8.33
    3 votes
    23

    Free-to-play

    Free-to-play (F2P) refers to any video game or social or mobile application that has the option of allowing its players/users to play/download without paying. The model was first popularly used in early massively multiplayer online games (MMO) targeted towards casual gamers, before finding wider adoption among games released by major video game publishers to combat video game piracy and high system requirements. Since games using the concept are available at no cost to players, they use other means to gather revenue, such as charging money for certain in-game items (like powerful bonuses which are usually available for real money only) or integrating advertisements into the game. Free-to-play can be compared to pay-to-play, in which payment is required before using a service. Pay-to-play games usually offer equal gaming experience for all players while free-to-play games give advantage to premium players. Free-to-play games are similar to freemium, a more general term and a business model in which a product is offered free of charge while a fee is charged for users to access premium features and virtual goods. There is no strict distinction between certain shareware versions of
    10.00
    2 votes
    24

    Sleepycat License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    Sleepycat License (sometimes referred to as Berkeley Database License or the Sleepycat Public License) is an OSI-approved open source license used by Oracle Corporation for the Berkeley DB, Berkeley DB Java Edition and Berkeley DB XML embedded database products. The name of this license is derived from the name of the company which commercially sold the Berkeley DB products, Sleepycat Software, which was acquired by Oracle in 2006. Oracle continues to use the name "Sleepycat License" despite not using the term "Sleepycat" in any other documentation. According to the Free Software Foundation, it qualifies as a free software license, and is compatible with the GPL. The license is a strong form of copyleft because it mandates that redistributions in any form not only include the source code of Berkeley DB, but also "any accompanying software that uses the DB software". It is possible to circumvent this strict licensing policy through the purchase of a commercial software license from Oracle Corporation consisting of terms and conditions which are negotiated at the time of sale. This is an example of dual licensing.
    6.75
    4 votes
    25

    Software license agreement

    In the proprietary software industry, an end-user license agreement or software license agreement is the contract between the licensor and purchaser, establishing the purchaser's right to use the software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup). Many form contracts are only contained in digital form, and only presented to a user as a click-through where the user must "accept". As the user may not see the agreement until after he or she has already purchased the software, these documents may be contracts of adhesion. Software companies often make special agreements with large businesses and government entities that include support contracts and specially drafted warranties. Some EULA form contracts accompany shrink-wrapped software that is presented to a user sometimes on paper or more usually electronically, during the installation procedure. The user has the choice of accepting or rejecting the agreement. The installation of the software is conditional to the user clicking a button labelled "accept". See
    6.75
    4 votes
    26

    Yahoo! Public License

    Yahoo! Public License is a free software license by Yahoo!. It is used among others by old versions of the collaborative software Zimbra. It is approved by the Free Software Foundation as a free (however GPL-incompatible) software license.
    6.75
    4 votes
    27

    Closed source

    Closed source is a term for software released or distributed without the corresponding source code. Closed source programs are mainly full version programs. Generally, it means only the binaries of a computer program are distributed and the license provides no access to the program's source code. The source code of such programs might be regarded as a trade secret of the company. Access to source code by third parties commonly requires the party to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The term is widely used by the media. Examples of freeware closed source software include Adobe Reader and Skype, examples of commercial software closed source include Microsoft Office 2010 and WinRAR. Closed-source software is not necessarily synonymous with commercial software or freeware, but rather any software that has a closed-source for certain reasons. For instance some source ports of Doom are closed-source because of security breaches on Internet gameplay.
    8.00
    3 votes
    28

    Donationware

    Donationware is a licensing model that supplies fully operational unrestricted software to the user and requests an optional donation be paid to the programmer or a third-party beneficiary (usually a non-profit). The amount of the donation may also be stipulated by the author, or it may be left to the discretion of the user, based on individual perceptions of the software's value. Since donationware comes fully operational (i.e. not crippleware) when payment is optional, it is a type of freeware. Red Ryder was the name of a well known communications and terminal emulation software program created for the Apple Macintosh in the 1980s. It was one of the first donationware programs to be distributed on the internet. It was written by Scott Watson, who founded The FreeSoft Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. By spending no money on advertising, but simply offering Red Ryder on Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs), allowed Watson to market and distribute what became the number-one communications program for the Mac. He did not sell it in any store. All he asked of those who downloaded the program into their computer was that they might send him $40. He later said, "I took advantage of a
    8.00
    3 votes
    29

    BSD3 License

    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Neither the name of the <organization>; nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
    9.50
    2 votes
    30

    Zlib/libpng license

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The zlib License is a permissive free software license which defines the terms under which the zlib and libpng software libraries can be distributed. It is also used by other free software packages. The zlib License has been approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a free software licence, and by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as an open source license. It is compatible with the GNU General Public License. The license only has the following points to be accounted for: The license does not require source code to be made available if distributing binary code. The license terms are as follows:
    9.50
    2 votes
    31
    6.50
    4 votes
    32
    7.67
    3 votes
    33

    NASA Open Source Agreement

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) is an OSI-approved software license. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) releases some software (such as NASA World Wind) under this license. Publication of open source software fits in with Agency functions outlined under the National Aeronautics and Space Act, that is, to "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof." The NOSA was a point of discussion for NASA's Open Source Summit in March 2011. The NASA Open Source Agreement was accepted as an open source license. The Free Software Foundation, however, raises issue with the following clause: G. Each Contributor represents that its Modification is believed to be Contributor's original creation and does not violate any existing agreements, regulations, statutes or rules, and further that Contributor has sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this Agreement. The FSF states that “free software development depends on combining code from third parties”, and because of this requirement that changes be your “original creation” the license is not a free software
    7.67
    3 votes
    34
    9.00
    2 votes
    35
    9.00
    2 votes
    36

    W3C license

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The W3C license is a copyright license for computer software of the W3C. It is compatible with the GNU GPL. The full text of the license follows: This formulation of W3C's notice and license became active on December 31 2002.
    9.00
    2 votes
    37
    6.25
    4 votes
    38

    BitTorrent Open Source License

    The BitTorrent Open Source Licence, is derived from the Jabber Open Source License, which is an Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved license. Former versions of the BitTorrent client (before 6.0) and related pieces of software are licensed under this License which is available here: http://www2.bittorrent.com/legal/bittorrent-open-source-license A noteworthy aspect of the BitTorrent Open Source Licence is that it does not grant trademark licence. The trademark "BitTorrent" is owned by the company BitTorrent Inc. and is governed by the Trademark Use Guidelines available here: http://www.bittorrent.com/trademark.html Although the licence is derived from an OSI approved license, this licence has not been approved. Furthermore, the approved version of the Jabber licence is no longer used or recommended for use by its authors. The Free Software Foundation considers it to be a free software license, albeit one incompatible with the GNU General Public License.
    5.20
    5 votes
    39
    7.33
    3 votes
    40

    Share-alike

    Share-alike is a copyright licensing term, originally used by the Creative Commons project, to describe works or licences that require copies or adaptations of the work to be released under the same or similar licence as the original. Copyleft licences are free content or free software licences with a share-alike condition. Two currently-supported Creative Commons licences have the ShareAlike condition: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (a copyleft, free content licence) and Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (a proprietary licence). The term has also been used outside of copyright law to refer to a similar plan for patent licensing. Copyleft or libre share-alike licences are the largest subcategory of share-alike licences. They include both free content licences like Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and free software licences like the GNU General Public License. These licences have been described pejoratively as viral licences, because the inclusion of copyleft material in a larger work typically requires the entire work to be made copyleft. The term reciprocal license has also been used to describe copyleft, but has also been used for non-libre
    6.00
    4 votes
    41
    8.50
    2 votes
    42
    8.50
    2 votes
    43
    8.50
    2 votes
    44

    Academic Free License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Academic Free License (AFL) is a permissive free software license written in 2002 by Lawrence E. Rosen, the general counsel of the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The license grants similar rights to the BSD, MIT, UoI/NCSA and Apache licenses — licenses allowing the software to be made proprietary — but was written to correct perceived problems with those licenses: The Free Software Foundation consider all AFL versions through 3.0 as incompatible with the GNU GPL. though Eric S. Raymond (a co-founder of the OSI) contends that AFL 3.0 is GPL compatible. In late 2002, an OSI working draft considered it a "best practice" license. In mid 2006, however, the OSI's License Proliferation Committee found it "redundant with more popular licenses", specifically version 2 of the Apache Software License.
    10.00
    1 votes
    45

    Collaborative Source license

    The Collaborative Source License (CSL), also known as Collaborative Source Software(CSS)) is a software license which enforces a strong quid pro quo philosophy as opposed to other Open-Source Software licenses, originally written by Stᅢᄅphane Croisier for the Jahia server. The basic idea behind collaborative source is very simple: To combine the best of open source and proprietary world in one simple license definition. Otherwise speaking, to provide a sustainable commercial business model based on license revenue streams for a software company while keeping most of the advantages of open source software and community based development. The terms are: This is probably the best way to ensure the availability of high-quality, rapidly evolving software while keeping full and free access to the whole source code. Active contributors within the community will receive some fair compensations pro-rata their commitments to the project. Technology free-riders will be taxed and will need to pay a cash royalty that will finance the work of other community members. So, in summary this licensing policy is harmful only to the one who attempts to get an unfair benefit of other peoples'
    10.00
    1 votes
    46
    10.00
    1 votes
    47

    Apache License

    • Versions: Apache License 1.0
    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Apache License  /əˈpætʃi/ is a free software license authored by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). The Apache License requires preservation of the copyright notice and disclaimer. All software produced by the ASF or any of its projects or subjects is licensed according to the terms of the Apache License. Some non-ASF software is also licensed using the Apache License. As of November 2010, over 6000 projects located at SourceForge.net were available under the terms of the Apache License. In a blog post from May 2008 Google mentioned that 25,000 out of the 100,000 projects then hosted on Google Code were using the Apache License, including the Android operating system. The Apache License 1.0 was the original Apache License which applies only to older versions of Apache packages (such as version 1.2 of the Web server). The Apache License 1.1 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, but only in their documentation. The ASF adopted the Apache License 2.0 in January 2004. The stated goals of
    7.00
    3 votes
    48

    Common Development and Distribution License

    • Version of: Mozilla Public License
    Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) is a free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1. Files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. The Free Software Foundation considers it a free software license that is incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). The incompatibility arises from a complex interaction of several clauses that the CDDL inherited from the MPL. The CDDL was submitted for approval to the Open Source Initiative on December 1, 2004 and was approved as an open source license in mid January 2005. In the first draft of the OSI's license proliferation committee report, the CDDL is one of nine preferred licenses listed as popular, widely used, or with strong communities. The previous license used by Sun for its free software/open source projects was the Sun Public License (SPL), also derived from the Mozilla Public License. The CDDL license is considered by Sun to be SPL version 2. Example products released under CDDL: The second CDDL proposal, submitted in early January 2005, includes some corrections that
    7.00
    3 votes
    49
    Creative Commons License

    Creative Commons License

    A Creative Commons license is one of several copyright licenses that allow the distribution of copyrighted works. A Creative Commons license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and even build upon a work that they have created. CC provides an author flexibility (for example, you might choose to allow only non-commercial uses of their own work) and protects the people who use or redistribute an authors work, so they don’t have to worry about copyright infringement, as long as they abide by the conditions the author has specified. There are several types of CC licenses. The licenses differ by several combinations that condition the terms of distribution. They were initially released on December 16, 2002 by Creative Commons, a U.S. non-profit corporation founded in 2001. As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been "ported" to over 50 different jurisdictions worldwide. No new ports are being started as preparations for version 4.0 of the license suite begin. The original set of licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide, without changes, at no charge. The details of each of these
    7.00
    3 votes
    50

    Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement

    The Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) is a software license proposed by Hacktivismo that attempts to put ethical restrictions on use and modification of software released under it. The license was written by Oxblood Ruffin (of Hacktivismo and CULT OF THE DEAD COW) and Eric Grimm, an attorney with the EFF. The HESSLA allows for enhancements to be made and for derivative works to be created, but it prohibits the use or modification of the software to violate human rights or to introduce features that spy on the user. It is intended to be a legally enforceable document. However, due to these restrictions, it is not technically a free software license, though it was inspired by free software and open source licenses. It has been criticized by the Free Software Foundation for introducing restrictions that they claim are ineffective for preventing abuse, but introduce legal incompatibility with other licenses. It also is listed as a good example being a Human rights license in the Creative Commons wiki. The web browser xB Browser was temporary based on the Torrify Ethical Software License Agreement (TESLA) which was build upon HESSLA.
    7.00
    3 votes
    51

    Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer is an open source license, approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). It is unique among the OSI's licenses because of the choices it allows in its construction; it lets the licensor pick anywhere from 0-2 warranty disclaimers, whether they want to prohibit your publicity of the software derivatives (like in the BSD License), and other spelling and grammar options. Besides this, the license can be almost functionally identical to the new 3-clause BSD License (if the option for the no-promotion clause is exercised), or the MIT License (if the option for the no-promotion clause is not exercised). Variants of this license are in use primarily in older software, including the original BSD kernel, developed by IBM, Intel and others. Today, it is most popular to choose either the new 3-clause BSD License or the MIT License to meet the licensing needs of the developer. This is the only OSI-certified license (excluding the public domain) that can lack a disclaimer of warranty. The Free Software Foundation has not yet recognized this license as a free software license in the general case, but has done so for certain variations, such as that
    7.00
    3 votes
    52

    RealNetworks Community Source License

    The RealNetworks Community Source License (RCSL) is a software license. Developers pick this license when they do not want to open source their resultant Helix DNA-based application. RCSL has a free R&D license and commercial terms for distribution. The RCSL is used by the Helix project.
    7.00
    3 votes
    54

    Open-source license

    • Versions: Open Group Test Suite License
    An open-source license is a copyright license for computer software that makes the source code available for everyone to use. This allows end users to review and modify the source code for their own customization and/or troubleshooting needs. Open-source licenses are also commonly free, allowing for modification, redistribution, and commercial use without having to pay the original author. Some open-source licenses only permit modification of the source code for personal use or only permit non-commercial redistribution. All such licenses usually have additional restrictions such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and a copyright statement within the code. One popular set of free open-source software licenses are those approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) based on their Open Source Definition (OSD). The Free Software Foundation has a related but distinct criterion for evaluating whether or not a license qualifies a program as free software. All licenses qualified as free software are also considered open-source licenses. In the same way, the Debian project has its own criteria, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, on which the Open-Source Definition is
    6.67
    3 votes
    55

    SIL Open Font License

    The SIL Open Font License is a free and open source license designed for fonts by SIL International for use with some of their Unicode fonts. The license is considered free by the Free Software Foundation, which states that a simple hello world program is enough to satisfy the license's requirement that fonts using the license be distributed with computer software.
    6.67
    3 votes
    56

    Aladdin Free Public License

    The Aladdin Free Public License, abbreviated AFPL, is a license written by L. Peter Deutsch for his Ghostscript PostScript language interpreter. The license was derived from the GNU General Public License, but differs on two key points: Deutsch chose to include a commercial restriction in the AFPL based on his observation of people including Ghostscript in commercial products without full license compliance. Recent versions of Ghostscript are not licensed under the AFPL. Despite the name, the Free Software Foundation does not consider the AFPL a free software license. and it does not fall under the Copyfree Standard Definition
    8.00
    2 votes
    57
    Creative Commons (by-sa)

    Creative Commons (by-sa)

    License THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED. BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 1. Definitions
    1. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
    2. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
    3. "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License, including, at a minimum, because that license: (i) contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under this License or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License.
    4. "Distribute" means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership.
    5. "License Elements" means the following high-level license attributes as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title of this License: Attribution, ShareAlike.
    6. "Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.
    7. "Original Author" means, in the case of a literary or artistic work, the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work or if no individual or entity can be identified, the publisher; and in addition (i) in the case of a performance the actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore; (ii) in the case of a phonogram the producer being the person or legal entity who first fixes the sounds of a performance or other sounds; and, (iii) in the case of broadcasts, the organization that transmits the broadcast.
    8. "Work" means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form, such as a book, pamphlet and other writing; a lecture, address, sermon or other work of the same nature; a dramatic or dramatico-musical work; a choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show; a musical composition with or without words; a cinematographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; a work of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving or lithography; a photographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; a work of applied art; an illustration, map, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; a performance; a broadcast; a phonogram; a compilation of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work; or a work performed by a variety or circus performer to the extent it is not otherwise considered a literary or artistic work.
    9. "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.
    10. "Publicly Perform" means to perform public recitations of the Work and to communicate to the public those public recitations, by any means or process, including by wire or wireless means or public digital performances; to make available to the public Works in such a way that members of the public may access these Works from a place and at a place individually chosen by them; to perform the Work to the public by any means or process and the communication to the public of the performances of the Work, including by public digital performance; to broadcast and rebroadcast the Work by any means including signs, sounds or images.
    11. "Reproduce" means to make copies of the Work by any means including without limitation by sound or visual recordings and the right of fixation and reproducing fixations of the Work, including storage of a protected performance or phonogram in digital form or other electronic medium.
    2. Fair Dealing Rights. Nothing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other applicable laws. 3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
    1. to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections;
    2. to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked "The original work was translated from English to Spanish," or a modification could indicate "The original work has been modified.";
    3. to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections; and,
    4. to Distribute and Publicly Perform Adaptations.
    5. For the avoidance of doubt:
      1. Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License;
      2. Waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme can be waived, the Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; and,
      3. Voluntary License Schemes. The Licensor waives the right to collect royalties, whether individually or, in the event that the Licensor is a member of a collecting society that administers voluntary licensing schemes, via that society, from any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License.
    The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. Subject to Section 8(f), all rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved. 4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
    1. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested.
    2. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License. If you license the Adaptation under one of the licenses mentioned in (iv), you must comply with the terms of that license. If you license the Adaptation under the terms of any of the licenses mentioned in (i), (ii) or (iii) (the "Applicable License"), you must comply with the terms of the Applicable License generally and the following provisions: (I) You must include a copy of, or the URI for, the Applicable License with every copy of each Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform; (II) You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of the Applicable License or the ability of the recipient of the Adaptation to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License; (III) You must keep intact all notices that refer to the Applicable License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work as included in the Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform; (IV) when You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Adaptation, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Adaptation from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License. This Section 4(b) applies to the Adaptation as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Adaptation itself to be made subject to the terms of the Applicable License.
    3. If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Ssection 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.
    4. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.
    5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. 6. Limitation on Liability. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 7. Termination
    1. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Adaptations or Collections from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.
    2. Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
    8. Miscellaneous
    1. Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work or a Collection, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.
    2. Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.
    3. If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.
    4. No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.
    5. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.
    6. The rights granted under, and the subject matter referenced, in this License were drafted utilizing the terminology of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979), the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention (as revised on July 24, 1971). These rights and subject matter take effect in the relevant jurisdiction in which the License terms are sought to be enforced according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law. If the standard suite of rights granted under applicable copyright law includes additional rights not granted under this License, such additional rights are deemed to be included in the License; this License is not intended to restrict the license of any rights under applicable law.
    8.00
    2 votes
    58

    Eclipse Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is an open source software license used by the Eclipse Foundation for its software. It replaces the Common Public License (CPL) and removes certain terms relating to litigations related to patents. The Eclipse Public License is designed to be a business-friendly free software license and features weaker copyleft provisions than contemporary licenses such as the GNU General Public License (GPL). The receiver of EPL-licensed programs can use, modify, copy and distribute the work and modified versions, in some cases being obligated to release their own changes. The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and is listed as a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed. The GPL requires that "[any distributed work] that ... contains or is derived from the [GPL-licensed] Program ... be licensed as a whole ... under the terms of [the GPL]", and that the distributor not "impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted". The
    8.00
    2 votes
    59

    Giftware

    A type of software license that "gave" the software licensing to its user to be used for any purpose. For example, the Allegro library for computer game development is licensed under a giftware license (available here, on the official website). Users of the software are permitted to use it for any purpose (even commercially, as stated in the official FAQ here), but they are encouraged to give back a "gift" to the Allegro community - for example, by adding improvements to the library, or by releasing game source code they have written, so that others can learn something from it.
    8.00
    2 votes
    60

    Code Project Open License

    The Code Project Open License (CPOL) is a software license published by The Code Project, a community site for software developers. The license is mainly applied to content that is being published on the site. Its main points subject to the terms of the license are: The license itself grants copyright and patent protection to the developer. The Code Project has a comparison of the CPOL to open-source licenses on their site. Further, the license provides a distinction and clarification between the source code available for download and the source code's author's articles and writings about that content. The "Open" in the name Code Project Open License refers to the license offering accessibility to the software's source code. The license is not "Open" as defined by the Open Source Initiative because it places restrictions on how the software can be used, such as forbidding its use in illegal, immoral or improper material as well as a prohibition on commercial distribution of the code in isolation. The CPOL is strictly for source code that is gratis, but is not recognized as a free or open license by the Free Software Foundation due to the restrictions within the CPOL forbidding
    5.50
    4 votes
    61

    MIT License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The MIT License is a free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It is a permissive free software license, meaning that it permits reuse within proprietary software provided all copies of the licensed software include a copy of the MIT License terms. Such proprietary software retains its proprietary nature even though it incorporates software under the MIT License. The license is also GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT License. Software packages that use one of the versions of the MIT License include Expat, PuTTY, the Mono development platform class libraries, Ruby on Rails, CakePHP, Symfony, Lua (from version 5.0 onwards), and the X Window System, for which the license was written. Because MIT has used many licenses for software, "MIT License" is considered ambiguous by the Free Software Foundation. "MIT License" may refer to the "Expat License" (used for Expat) or to the "X11 License" (also called "MIT/X Consortium License"; used for the X Window System by the MIT X Consortium). The "MIT License" published on the official site of Open Source Initiative is the same as
    5.50
    4 votes
    62

    Apple Public Source License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Apple Public Source License is the open source and free software license under which Apple's Darwin operating system was released. A free software and open source license was voluntarily adopted to further involve the community from which much of Darwin originated. The first version of the Apple Public Source License was approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Version 2.0, released July 29, 2003 conforms to the Free Software Foundation guidelines, and is also approved by the OSI. The Free Software Foundation approved the Apple Public Source License 2.0 as a free software license and say it is acceptable for developers to work on projects that are already covered by this license. They recommend, however, that developers do not release new projects under this license, because the partial copyleft is not compatible with the GNU General Public License and allows linking with files released entirely as proprietary software. The license does, however, require that if any derivatives from the original source are released externally, that the source be made available. Many software releases from Apple have now been relicensed under the more liberal Apache License, such as the
    9.00
    1 votes
    63

    IBM Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The IBM Public License (IPL) is a free software / open-source software license written and sometimes used by IBM. It is approved by the Open Source Initiative and is described as a "free software license" by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The IPL differs from the GNU General Public License (GPL), in that it places the liability on the publisher or distributor of the licensed software code. According to IBM, this is to facilitate commercial use of open-source software, without placing the contributor at a risk of liability. Proponents of the IPL note a clearer definition of responsibility for software code than that of the GPL. The IPL is incompatible with the GPL because it contains restrictions not included in the GPL. According to the FSF "This is a free software license. Unfortunately, it has a choice of law clause which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL.)" The IPL differs from the GPL in the handling of patents, as IPL terminates the license upon patent disputes. This license has also been criticised because of provisions in section 4 which require commercial distributors of code covered by this license to indemnify all "upstream" originators for legal costs relating
    9.00
    1 votes
    64
    9.00
    1 votes
    65

    Sun Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Sun Public License (SPL) is a software license that applies to some open-source software released by Sun Microsystems (such as NetBeans before the 5.5 version). It has been approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a free software license, and by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as an open source license. It is derived from the Mozilla Public License. This license has been superseded by the Common Development and Distribution License, which is also derived from the MPL.
    9.00
    1 votes
    66

    W3C Software Notice and License

    The W3C Software Notice and License is a permissive free software license used by software released by the World Wide Web Consortium, like Amaya. The license is a permissive license, compatible with the GNU General Public License.
    9.00
    1 votes
    67

    Game System License

    The 4th edition Game System License was released to the public on June 17, 2008. This license is similar to, but more restrictive than, the Open Game License (OGL) that was created for 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons. The license allows third-party publishers to create products using the intellectual property of Dungeons and Dragons. This license differs from the previous OGL in several ways. People wishing to use this license are allowed and granted a logo that must be placed onto their products to state that they are compatible with Dungeon & Dragons 4th Edition. The license also can be updated by Wizards of the Coast and updates affect all licensees; in case of litigation the licensees must pay the legal costs of Wizards of the Coast. Prior to Gen Con 2008, it was announced that the GSL is undergoing a revision. Shortly after the end of the convention a number of Wizards of the Coast's jobs were eliminated including the Licensing Manager position that was held by Linae Foster. The former D&D Brand Manager, Scott Rouse, was in charge of the revisions to the GSL; until his leaving WotC on Oct 12, 2009.
    6.33
    3 votes
    69

    Netscape Public License

    The Netscape Public License (NPL) is a free software license, the license under which Netscape Communications Corporation originally released Mozilla. Its most notable feature is that it gives the original developer of Mozilla (Netscape, now a subsidiary of AOL), the right to distribute modifications made by other contributors under whatever terms it desires, including proprietary terms, without granting similar rights to these other contributors in respect to contributions made by the original developer. This allowed the release of the Netscape 6 and later versions as proprietary software. This asymmetry with respect to rights has led to criticism of the license by many members of the open source and free software movements: the Free Software Foundation acknowledged it as a free-software license but one to be avoided, and the Open Source Initiative either rejected it entirely or was not asked to review it. The FSF adds that it's not possible to combine software obtained under the license with software obtained under the GPL. The Mozilla Public License is similar, but lacks the asymmetry in rights. Time Warner, exercising its rights under the Netscape Public License, and at the
    6.33
    3 votes
    70
    Open source

    Open source

    In production and development, open source is a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details. Before the phrase open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; open source gained hold with the rise of the Internet, and the attendant need for massive retooling of the computing source code. Opening the source code enabled a self-enhancing diversity of production models, communication paths, and interactive communities. The open-source software movement was born to describe the environment that the new copyright, licensing, domain, and consumer issues created. The open-source model includes the concept of concurrent yet different agendas and differing approaches in production, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial software companies. A main principle and practice of open-source software development is peer production by bartering and collaboration, with the end-product, source-material, "blueprints", and documentation available at no cost to the public. This model is also
    6.33
    3 votes
    71

    Sybase Open Watcom Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Sybase Open Watcom Public Licence is an open source license that has been approved by the Open Source Initiative. It is the licence under which the Open Watcom C/C++ compiler is released. The license has not been accepted as "free" under the Debian Free Software Guidelines, due to controversy about the license's termination clauses. The Fedora project also considers the license as non free. The draft of version 2.0 of the Licence was published on 20 January 2004. This version incorporated changes from Apple and made the licence less specific to OpenWatcom.
    6.33
    3 votes
    72
    6.33
    3 votes
    73

    Ruby License

    The Ruby License is the free software licence applied to the Ruby programming language and also available to be used in other projects. The Free Software Foundation comments: "This is a free software licence, compatible with the GPL via an explicit dual-licensing clause."
    7.50
    2 votes
    75

    Frameworx License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Frameworx License is a GPL compatible Open-source license. The organization that wrote this license the Frameworx Open license is The Frameworx Company. It does not relate to a specific program but it is widely used by many open source software projects. The Frameworx Company strongly believes that the end result of open source software is better quality, greater technical and product innovation in the market place, and a more empowered and productive developer and end-user community. As such, the main objective of the Frameworx license is to ensure that the Frameworx Code Base, and the source code for improvements and innovations to it, remain free and open to the community. Compatibility with GPL The Frameworx license agreement speaks to distributive works basically the same way. More specifically, it states that "each Downstream Distribution made by You, and by any party directly or indirectly obtaining rights to the Frameworx Code Base through You, shall be made subject to a license grant or agreement to the extent necessary so that each distributee under that Downstream Distribution will be subject to the same restrictions on re-distribution and use as are binding on You
    6.00
    3 votes
    76
    GNU Free Documentation License

    GNU Free Documentation License

    The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project. It is similar to the GNU General Public License, giving readers the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100), the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient. The GFDL was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GNU software. However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter. For example, the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia used to use the GFDL for all of its text. The GFDL was released in draft form for feedback in September 1999. After revisions, version 1.1 was issued in March 2000, version 1.2 in November 2002, and version 1.3 in November 2008. The current state of the license is version 1.3. The first discussion draft of the GNU Free Documentation License version 2 was released on
    6.00
    3 votes
    77

    GNU Simpler Free Documentation License

    The GNU Simpler Free Documentation License (GSFDL) is a proposed version of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) that has no requirements to maintain Cover Texts and Invariant Sections. It is meant to provide a simpler licensing option for authors who do not wish to use these features in the GFDL. The GSFDL is a copyleft license for free content, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project. This license is currently only in draft form (published September 26, 2006). The draft is mostly identical to the current Version 2 draft of the GNU Free Documentation License, except it makes no provision for Cover Texts and Invariant Sections; and it includes a new section 0a entitled "Free Manuals are Essential" which contains an ideological statement. The GFDLv2 explicitly allows cross licensing to the GSFDL for any work that does not use any of the features that the GSFDL does not support. The license was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GPL software. However, it can be used for any work, regardless of subject matter or medium (although it is not recommended for use in
    6.00
    3 votes
    78

    Python License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Python License is a deprecated computer software license created by the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI). It was used for versions 1.6 and 2.0 of the Python programming language, both released in the year 2000. The Python License is similar to the BSD License and, while it is a free software license, its wording means that it is incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL) used by a great deal of free software including the Linux kernel. For this reason CNRI retired the license in 2001 in favour of the Python Software Foundation License. Python was created by Guido van Rossum and the initial copyright was held by his employer, the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI). During this time Python was distributed under a GPL-compatible variant of the Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer license. CNRI obtained ownership of Python when van Rossum became employed there, and after some years they drafted a new license for the language. The Python License includes a clause stating that the license is governed by the State of Virginia, United States. The Python Software Foundation License; Python 1.6.1 differs from Python 1.6 only in some minor bug
    6.00
    3 votes
    79

    Boost Software License

    The Boost Software License is an open-source license used by the Boost C++ Libraries. It is also a popular license for a significant number of other open source C++ projects. It is a permissive license in the style of the popular BSD license and MIT license. The license has been OSI-approved since February 2008. According to the Free Software Foundation, it qualifies as a free software license, and is compatible with the GNU General Public License.
    7.00
    2 votes
    80

    Freeware

    Freeware (portmanteau of "free" and "software") is software that is available for use at no cost or for an optional fee, but usually with one or more restricted usage rights. Freeware is in contrast to commercial software, which is typically sold for profit, but might be distributed for a business or commercial purpose in the aim to expand the marketshare of a "premium" product. According to the Free Software Foundation, "freeware" is a loosely defined category and it has no clear accepted definition, although FSF says it must be distinguished from free software (libre). Popular examples of closed-source freeware include Adobe reader and Skype. The term freeware was coined by Andrew Fluegelman when he wanted to sell a communications program named PC-Talk that he had created but for which he did not wish to use traditional methods of distribution because of their cost. Fluegelman actually distributed PC-Talk via a process now referred to as shareware. Current use of the term freeware does not necessarily match the original concept by Andrew Fluegelman. The term freeware was used often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with source code not available. Software
    7.00
    2 votes
    81

    NetHack General Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The NetHack General Public License is a copyleft software license primarily used by the roguelike game NetHack. It is certified as an open source license by the Open Source Initiative. The license was written in 1989 by Mike Stephenson, who patterned it after the GNU bison license (which was written by Richard Stallman in 1988). Like the Bison license, and Stallman's later GNU General Public License, the NetHack license was written to allow the free sharing and modification of the source code under its protection. At the same time, the license explicitly states that the source code is not covered by any warranty, thus protecting the original authors from litigation. The NetHack GPL requires all derivative works to be distributed under the same license, except that the creator of a derivative work is allowed to offer warranty protection on the new work. The derivative work is required to indicate the modifications made and the dates of changes. In addition, the source code of the derivative work must be made available, free of charge except for nominal distribution fees.
    7.00
    2 votes
    82

    RealNetworks Public Source License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The RealNetworks Public Source License (RPSL) is a software licence. It has been approved as a free software licence by both Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative (OSI), but it is incompatible with the GPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The RPSL is used by the Helix project.
    7.00
    2 votes
    84
    5.67
    3 votes
    85

    GPL linking exception

    A GPL linking exception modifies the GNU General Public License (GPL) to create a new, modified license. Such modified licenses enable software projects which provide library code, to be "linked to" the programs that use them, without applying the full terms of the GPL to the using program. Linking is the technical process of connecting code in a library to the using code, to produce a single executable file. It is performed either at compile time or run-time in order to produce functional machine-readable code. There is a public perception, unsupported by any legal precedent or citation, that without applying the linking exception, code linked with GPL code may only be done using a GPL-compatible license. The license of the GNU Classpath project explicitly includes a statement to that effect. Many free software libraries which are distributed under the GPL use an equivalent exception, although the wording of the exception varies. Notable projects include GNU Guile, the run-time libraries of GNAT, GNU Classpath and the famous GCC Runtime Library Exception. Compiler runtime libraries also often use this license, e.g. the libgcc library in the GNU Compiler Collection uses a very
    5.67
    3 votes
    86

    Open Company License

    This license is used for software released by an Open Company. It's purpose is to try to find the middle ground between open source and proprietary licenses. It is essentially the well known BSD license with a single extra clause:
    5.67
    3 votes
    87

    Shareware

    Shareware (also termed trialware or demoware) is proprietary software that is provided to users without payment on a trial basis and is often limited by any combination of functionality, availability (it may be functional for a limited time period only), or convenience (the software may present a dialog at startup or during usage, reminding the user to purchase it; "nagging dialogs"). Shareware is often offered as a download from an Internet website or as a compact disc included with a periodical such as a newspaper or magazine. The rationale behind shareware is to give buyers the opportunity to use the program and judge its usefulness before purchasing a license for the full version of the software. Firms with superior software thus have an incentive to offer samples, except if their product is already well known, or if they do not want to be listed in direct competition with other products on shareware repositories. Shareware is usually offered either with certain features only available after the license is purchased, or as a full version but for a limited trial period of time. Once the trial period has passed, the program may stop running until a license is purchased. Shareware
    8.00
    1 votes
    88
    6.50
    2 votes
    89
    6.50
    2 votes
    90
    GNU Lesser General Public License

    GNU Lesser General Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The GNU Lesser General Public License (formerly the GNU Library General Public License) or LGPL is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It was designed as a compromise between the strong-copyleft GNU General Public License or GPL and permissive licenses such as the BSD licenses and the MIT License. The GNU Library General Public License (as the LGPL was originally named) was published in 1991, and adopted the version number 2 for parity with GPL version 2. The LGPL was revised in minor ways in the 2.1 point release, published in 1999, when it was renamed the GNU Lesser General Public License to reflect the FSF's position that not all libraries should use it. Version 3 of the LGPL was published in 2007 as a list of additional permissions applied to GPL version 3. The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program governed under it but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely link with the program. There are, however, certain other restrictions on this software. The LGPL is primarily used for software libraries, although it is also used by some stand-alone applications. The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is
    6.50
    2 votes
    91
    6.50
    2 votes
    93

    Q Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Q Public License (QPL) is a non-copyleft license, created by Trolltech for its free edition of the Qt. It was used until Qt 3.0, as Trolltech toolkit version 4.0 was released under GPL version 2. It fails the Debian Free Software Guidelines, used by several Linux distributions, though it qualifies for the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition; however, it is not compatible with the FSF's GNU General Public License, meaning that products derived from code under both the GPL and the QPL cannot be redistributed. KDE, a desktop environment for Linux, is based on Qt. Only the personal edition of Qt was covered by the QPL; the commercial edition, which is functionally equal, is under a pay-per-use license and could not be freely distributed. Meanwhile, the Free Software Foundation and authors of the GPL objected to the QPL as it was a non-copyleft license incompatible with the GPL. As KDE grew in popularity, the free software community urged Trolltech to put Qt under a license (the QPL) that would assure that it would remain free software forever and could be used and developed by commercial third-parties. Eventually, under pressure, Trolltech dual-licensed Qt for use
    6.50
    2 votes
    94

    Sun Industry Standards Source License

    The Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) is now a retired free and open source license, recognized as such by the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Under SISSL, developers could modify and distribute source code and derived binaries freely. Furthermore, developers could choose to keep their modifications private or make them public. However, the SISSL is unique among OSI-approved licenses in requiring that "The Modifications which You create must comply with all requirements set out by the Standards body in effect one hundred twenty (120) days before You ship the Contributor Version." If the Modifications do not comply, SISSL becomes a copyleft license, and source must be published "under the same terms as this license [SISSL] on a royalty free basis within thirty (30) days." Several open source projects funded by Sun Microsystems were licensed under SISSL, including OpenOffice.org, and Sun Grid Engine (SGE). Later versions of OpenOffice.org were dual-licensed under the SISSL and LGPL until the retirement of the SISSL, at which time OpenOffice.org was relicensed only under the LGPL. Sun Grid Engine appears to still be covered by the
    6.50
    2 votes
    95

    Common Public Attribution License

    The Common Public Attribution License ("CPAL") is a free software license approved by the Open Source Initiative in 2007. Its purpose is to be a general license for software distributed over a network. It is based on the Mozilla Public License, but it adds an attribution term paraphrased below: […] the Original Developer may include […] a requirement that each time an Executable and Source Code or a Larger Work is launched or initially run […] a prominent display of the Original Developer's Attribution Information […] must occur on the graphic user interface employed by the end user to access such Covered Code […] The CPAL also adds the following section discussing "network use" which triggers copyleft provisions when running CPAL licensed code on a network service and this way closing the so called ASP loophole: The term “External Deployment” means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Code or Modifications in any way such that the Original Code or Modifications may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for
    5.33
    3 votes
    96
    5.33
    3 votes
    97

    Ricoh Source Code Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Ricoh Source Code Public License is a software license intended for open source software creation. RPL : Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc. (now Ricoh Innovations, Inc.), a California corporation, wrote the license. It is used for a program named by Platform for Information Applications (PIA), a software framework that aims to make the creation and maintenance of information applications as easy as creating web pages. Its goal is to be responsive to the needs of developers. It supports the community of developers who build information applications by helping to create software that extends the open standards of the Web to provide an easy way for specifying processing as well as content Ricoh Innovations, Inc expressed that in their homepage; "There's no better way than open source to develop robust, simple to use, cost effective systems. The best example of this is the World Wide Web, which was founded on open source software. We believe that the PIA technology will extend the power of the web to give offices, especially smaller offices, greater ability to manage their information in the most cost effective way." RPL does not explicitly discuss compatibility with the GPL. It is said
    5.33
    3 votes
    98
    5.33
    3 votes
    99

    Open Software License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Open Software License (OSL) is a software license created by Lawrence Rosen. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has certified it as an open-source license, but the Debian project judged version 1.1 to be incompatible with the DFSG. The OSL is a copyleft license, with a termination clause triggered by filing a lawsuit alleging patent infringement. Many people in the free software / open-source community feel that software patents are harmful to software, and are particularly harmful to open-source software. The OSL attempts to counteract that by creating a pool of software which a user can use if that user does not harm it by attacking it with a patent lawsuit. The OSL has a termination clause intended to dissuade users from filing patent infringement lawsuits: Another goal of the OSL is to warrant provenance. The OSL is intended to be similar to the LGPL. Note that the definition of Derivative Works in the OSL does not cover linking to OSL software/libraries so software that merely links to OSL software is not subject to the OSL license. The OSL is not compatible with the GPL. It has been claimed that the OSL is intended to be legally stronger than the GPL, however, unlike the
    6.00
    2 votes
    100

    PHP License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The PHP License is the software license under which the PHP scripting language is released. The PHP License is a non-copyleft free software license according to the Free Software Foundation and an open source license according to the Open Source Initiative. The license is GPL-incompatible due to restrictions on the usage of the term PHP. The PHP License is designed to encourage widespread adoption of the source code. Redistribution is permitted in source or binary form with or without modifications provided that: Version 3 of PHP used a dual license - PHP 3's source is available under either the PHP License or the GNU General Public License (GPL). This practice was discontinued as of PHP 4, with PHP's developers citing the restrictions on reuse associated with the GPL's copyleft enforcement as being the reason for dropping it.
    6.00
    2 votes
    101

    Public Documentation License

    The Public Documentation License (PDL) was developed by the company Sun Microsystems for use as the OpenOffice.org documentation. It defines the same rights and restrictions as the Mozilla Public License (MPL) but whereas the latter is concerned with computer code, the PDL was primarily designed as a documentation license. The PDL is also used for the Firebird database server.
    6.00
    2 votes
    102

    Sun Community Source License

    The Sun Community Source License (SCSL) is a community source software licensing model designed by Sun Microsystems that covers the J2EE software development kit. Sun introduced the SCSL in 1998 to maintain compatibility within the Java platform and make code available for commercial use. In 2004, Sun began to favor the simpler Java Research License for noncommercial use. The SCSL includes elements similar to an open-source license, but it has significant differences, such as a requirement that code is compatible with Java standards and commercial derivative works are subject to licensing fees. The SCSL is not considered a free software license.
    6.00
    2 votes
    103

    Basic

    This is the type of license normally used by newbies and/or smaller businesses.
    7.00
    1 votes
    105
    7.00
    1 votes
    106

    Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    Reason the license was written:Computer Associates International (CA) wrote the license. It all began 2 years ago, when CA announced its plan to make the source code for its Ingres database on Linux available for download within 90 days. CA-TOSL was intended to be used in Ingres as well as in collaboration with other open source project such as JBoss, the Zope Web content management system, and the Plone document management system. Overall, Computer Associates' goal was to tap into the broad open-source development community and create a "stack" of open-source software tuned specifically for management. They believe that the open source development approach can take appropriate software programs to unprecedented levels of quality, growth, and innovation. Compatibility with the GPL:This CA-TOSL is considered to be NOT compatible with the GPL. First of all, CA-TOSL is derivative of CPL or common public license. Also, it belongs in the ¬タリreciprocal¬タル category along with BSD license whereas GPL, while it contains reciprocal nature, it is sub categorized into a ¬タリrestrictive¬タル license category. However, there were many terms in the license that are shared by GPL. According to
    5.50
    2 votes
    107

    Educational Community License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Educational Community License (ECL) is a free and open source license based on the Apache license (version 2.0) and created with the specific needs of the academic community in mind. Version 2 of the ECL came out of the Licensing and Policy Summit held in October 2006 in Indianapolis, Indiana where members of the academic community came together to address the concerns of releasing software written at an academic institution under a free/open source license. Members of the summit included university attorneys, technology transfer officers, free/open source project leaders, and foundation representatives. In particular, representatives of the Sakai Project and Kuali Foundation were in attendance. ECL version 2 was approved by the Open Source Initiative in the Summer of 2007, and the Free Software Foundation lists it as being a "GPL-Compatible Free Software License" that is compatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License but not compatible with GPLv2. This means that a software developer can mix code from an ECLv2 licensed project and a GPLv3 licensed project but, due to license terms incompatibility, they are not allowed to mix code from a ECLv2 project and a GPLv2
    5.50
    2 votes
    108

    GNU

    GNU /ɡnuː/ is a Unix-like computer operating system developed by the GNU Project, ultimately aiming to be a "complete Unix-compatible software system" composed wholly of free software. Development of GNU was initiated by Richard Stallman in 1983 and was the original focus of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Non-GNU kernels, most famously the Linux kernel, can also be used with GNU. The FSF maintains that Linux, when used with GNU tools and utilities, should be considered a variant of GNU, and promotes the term GNU/Linux for such systems (leading to the GNU/Linux naming controversy). GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!", chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code. Programs released under the auspices of the GNU Project are called GNU packages or GNU programs. The system's basic components include the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU C library (glibc), and GNU Core Utilities (coreutils), but also the GNU Debugger (GDB), GNU Binary Utilities (binutils), and the bash shell. GNU developers have contributed Linux ports of GNU applications and utilities, which are now also widely used on other
    5.50
    2 votes
    109
    5.50
    2 votes
    110
    6.00
    1 votes
    111
    6.00
    1 votes
    112

    WTFPL

    The WTFPL (Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License) is an infrequently used, extremely permissive free software license. It is essentially no different from dedication to the public domain. The original Version 1.0 license, released March 2000, was written by Banlu Kemiyatorn who used it for Window Maker artwork. Sam Hocevar, a French programmer who was the Debian project leader from 17 April 2007 to 16 April 2008, wrote version 2.0. It allows for redistribution and modification of the software under any terms—licensees are encouraged to "do what the fuck [they] want to". The license was approved as a GPL-compatible free software license by the Free Software Foundation. The text of the license: The WTFPL is rarely used, at least by name, but some software has been released under it. The license can also be applied to artwork and written material. Freecode, an index of free software, includes a specific category for WTFPL software and artwork, containing 31 entries as of June 2012, of which two are authored by Sam Hocevar, the author of version 2.0 of the license. Potlatch, the online editor of the OpenStreetMap project, is released under the WTFPL. 762 Studios libsst and ZSTL
    6.00
    1 votes
    113

    University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License is a permissive free software licence, based on the MIT/X11 license and the 3-clause BSD license. By combining parts of these two licenses, it attempts to be clearer and more concise than either. The license is the result of efforts by a University of Illinois committee set up in 2001. The intention was to create a new license standard for both NCSA and the worldwide software community in general. It was formally certified as an open-source license during a March 28, 2002 board meeting of the Open Source Initiative. Source code under the NCSA license can be incorporated into proprietary products without the reciprocity requirements that copyleft free software licenses raise. The license is compatible with all versions of the GNU General Public License. The following is a license template. On an actual license the sections within angle brackets (year, owner organization name, etc.) will be filled out. Copyright (c) . All rights reserved. Developed by: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
    5.00
    2 votes
    114

    Mozilla Public License

    • Versions: Common Development and Distribution License
    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is a free, open source, and detailed software license developed and maintained by the Mozilla Foundation. It is characterized as a hybridization of the modified BSD license and GNU General Public License (GPL) that seeks to balance the concerns of proprietary and open source developers. It has undergone two revisions, most recently to version 2.0 with the goals of greater simplicity and better compatibility with other licenses. The MPL is the license for the Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird, and other Mozilla software, but it has been used by others, such as Adobe to license their Flex product line. Version 1.1 was also notably adapted by companies to form derivative licenses like Sun Microsystems' own Common Development and Distribution License. The MPL has been approved as both a free software license (albeit one with a weak copyleft) by the Free Software Foundation and an open-source software license by the Open Source Initiative. The MPL allows covered source code to be mixed with other files under a different, even proprietary license. However, code files licensed under the MPL must remain under the MPL and freely
    4.50
    2 votes
    115

    Adaptive Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Adaptive Public License (APL) is an Open Source license from the University of Victoria. It is a weak copyleft, adaptable template license that has been approved by the Open Source Initiative. The Initial Contributor for a project sets up the license conditions for that project by choosing their specific options from the license template. Choices include:
    5.00
    1 votes
    116

    Affero General Public License

    • Version of: Open-source license
    The Affero General Public License, often abbreviated as Affero GPL and AGPL (and sometimes informally called the Affero License), refers to two distinct, though historically related, free software licenses: Both versions of the AGPL were designed to close a perceived application service provider "loophole" (the "ASP loophole") in the ordinary GPL, where by using but not distributing the software, the copyleft provisions are not triggered. Each version differs from the version of the GNU GPL on which it is based in having an additional provision addressing use of software over a computer network. The additional provision requires that the complete source code be made available to any network user of the AGPL-licensed work, typically a Web application. The Free Software Foundation has recommended that the GNU AGPLv3 be considered for any software that will commonly be run over a network. The Open Source Initiative approved the GNU AGPLv3 as an open source license in March 2008 after Funambol submitted it for consideration. In 2000, while developing an e-learning and e-service business model, Henry Poole met with Richard Stallman in Amsterdam where they discussed the ASP loophole in
    4.00
    2 votes
    117
    PLS Inc

    PLS Inc

    • Version of: docFinder
    PLS Inc is a Petroleum Listing Service providing the Oil and Gas industry with Research, Transaction and Advisory Services. PLS publishes 12 newsletter reports for USA, Canada & International Oil & Gas markets under the titles A&D Transactions, ProspectCentre, MidstreamNews, Capital Markets, Oilfield Services & Quick Price. PLS is an Oil & Gas brokerage with a MLS database of Oil & Gas Assets for Sale. PLS also provides proprietary databases including the M&A database of leading expert Oil & Gas Valuations, and the docFinder database, an interactive archive of Oil & Gas investor slide presentations. PLS hosts the Dealmakers Expo, the original Buyer Seller Prospects & Properties Exhibition, as well as Marketmakers & Playmakers Oil & Gas Conferences.
    4.00
    2 votes
    118
    DocFinder

    DocFinder

    • Versions: PLS Inc
    docFinder is a fully searchable online interactive archive of oil & gas investor presentations with over 400,000 slides from over 14,000 different sources and unique image & free-text searching capability. docFinder helps eliminate tedium, costs of wasted time and accelerates valuable research. Users can quickly export or refine results, share, store & download information without hassle, and specify visuals features like charts, maps, tables and graphs. Predefined Industry-tailored search criteria includes: Date of presentation, Peer & Data Comparisons, Tables, Seismic Imaging, Maps, Plats, & Isopachs, Well Logs, Decline & Type Curves, Valuations & Metrics, and dozens more.
    4.00
    1 votes
    119

    Ethical Software License

    The Ethical Software License is a copyleft license for software. The difference between ethical software and free software consists of this: if you (an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under an ethical license) distribute the source code for a valuable consideration, you must donate at least 1% of the sales from the products that include the source code to a beneficent corporation.
    4.00
    1 votes
    120

    Python Software Foundation License

    The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) is a BSD-style, permissive free software license which is compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). Its primary use is for distribution of the Python project software. Unlike the GPL the Python license is not a copyleft license, and allows modifications to the source code, as well as the construction of derivative works, without making the code open-source. The PSFL is listed as approved on both FSF's approved licenses list, and OSI's approved licenses list. Earlier versions of Python were under the so-called Python License, which is incompatible with the GPL. The reason given for this incompatibility by Free Software Foundation was that "this Python license is governed by the laws of the 'State of Virginia', in the USA", and the GPL does not permit this. The year that Python's creator Guido van Rossum changed the license to fix this incompatibility, he was awarded the Free Software Foundation Award for the Advancement of Free Software.
    4.00
    1 votes
    121
    0.00
    0 votes
    122

    BSD Licenses

    • Version of: Open-source license
    BSD licenses are a family of permissive free software licenses. The original license was used for the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), a Unix-like operating system after which it is named. The original owners of BSD were the Regents of the University of California because BSD was first written at the University of California, Berkeley. The first version of the license was revised, and the resulting licenses are more properly called modified BSD licenses. Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License, and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative, while the original, 4-clause license has not been accepted as an open source license and, although the original is considered to be a free software license by the FSF, the FSF does not consider it to be compatible with the GPL due to the advertising clause. Being a permissive free software license, the license places minimal restrictions on how the software can be redistributed. This is in contrast to copyleft licenses, which have reciprocity /
    0.00
    0 votes
    123

    EnterpriseBSD

    • Versions: BSD Licenses
    EnterpriseBSD is a project that wants to create a repackaged version of FreeBSD targeted for the enterprise/business environment.
    0.00
    0 votes
    124
    0.00
    0 votes
    125

    Floating licensing

    Floating licensing is a software licensing approach in which a limited number of licenses for a software application are shared among a larger number of users over time. When an authorized user wishes to run the application they request a license from a central license server. If a license is available the license server allows the application to run. When they finish using the application, or when the allowed license period expires, the license is reclaimed by the license server and made available to other authorized users. The license server can manage licenses over a local area network, an intranet or virtual private network, or the Internet. Floating licensing, also sometimes known as concurrent licensing or network licensing, is often used for high-value applications in corporate environments, such as electronic design automation or engineering tools. Following services and products are providing floating license solutions:
    0.00
    0 votes
    126

    Free software license

    A free software licence is a software licence which grants recipients extensive rights to modify and redistribute, which would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law. To qualify as a free software licence, the licence must grant the rights described in The Free Software Definition or one of the similar definitions based on this. In the mid-1980s, the GNU project produced individual free software licences for each of its software packages. The first free licence in history, the GCC General Public License, was applied to the GNU Compiler Collection and was initially published in 1987. The Original BSD license is also one of the first free software licences, dating to 1988. In 1989, version 1 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) was published. Version 2 of the GPL, released in 1991, went on to become the most widely used free software licence. Starting in the mid-90s and until the mid-00s, a trend began where companies and new projects wrote their own licences, or adapting others' licences to insert their own name. This licence proliferation led to problems of complexity and licence compatibility. One free software licence, the GNU GPL version 2, has been brought to court, first
    0.00
    0 votes
    127

    GNAT Modified General Public License

    The GNAT Modified General Public License (short: Modified GPL, GMGPL) is a version of the GNU General Public License specifically modified for the generic feature found in the Ada programming language. The modification is as follows: The GNAT Ada compiler can automate conformance checks for some GPL software license issues via a compiler directive. (Use pragma License (Modified_GPL); to activate the check against the Modified GPL. The GNAT Reference Manual documents the License pragma along with other compiler directives.
    0.00
    0 votes
    129

    Java Research License

    The Java Research License (JRL) is a software distribution license created by Sun in an effort to simplify and relax the terms from the "research section" of the Sun Community Source License. Sun's J2SE 1.6.0, Mustang, is licensed under the JRL as well as many projects at Java.net. Although the JRL has elements of an open source license, the terms forbid any commercial use and are thus incompatible with both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition. The JRL is a research license to be used for non-commercial academic uses.
    0.00
    0 votes
    131

    OPaC Free Public License

    The OPaC Free Public License (OFPL) is a software license based on the Aladdin Free Public License created by Pierre Arnaud for the distribution of the OPaC Class Library. The OFPL is a copyleft license, in that it requires any work based on OPaC be licensed under the terms of the OFPL. Pierre Arnaud created the OFPL for OPaC bright ideas. Software under the OFPL may not be distributed if any payment is made in connection for the distribution, directly or indirectly. The restriction contained in Section 2(c) of the OFPL reads:
    0.00
    0 votes
    132
    Public domain

    Public domain

    Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired, been forfeited, or are inapplicable. Examples include the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven, most of the early silent films, the formulae of Newtonian physics, and the patents on powered flight. The term is not normally applied to situations when the creator of a work retains residual rights, in which case use of the work is referred to as "under license" or with permission. In informal usage, the public domain consists of works that are publicly available; while according to the formal definition it consists of works that are unavailable for private ownership or are available for public use. As rights are country-based and vary, a work may be subject to rights in one country and not in another. Some rights depend on registrations with a country-by-country basis, and the absence of registration in a particular country, if required, implies public domain status in that country. Public Domain is one of the Traditional Safety Valves. The public domain did not come to fruition as a term until the mid-17th century, although as a concept "it can be traced back to the ancient Roman Law, as a preset
    0.00
    0 votes
    Get your friends to vote! Spread this URL or share:

    Discuss Best Software License of All Time

    Top List Voters