We are still actively working on the spam issue.
Difference between revisions of "Licenses"
(→Licenses) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
There are multiple kinds of licenses that software can be released under. | There are multiple kinds of licenses that software can be released under. | ||
*[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GNU GPL] is what GNU/Linux is released under. Essentially, you are free to do what you want with software released under this code, provided that if you release it to the public you must also release the source code. Source code does not have to be released if binaries to modifications are not released to the public. This license highly favors the end users. | *[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GNU GPL] is what GNU/Linux is released under. Essentially, you are free to do what you want with software released under this code, provided that if you release it to the public you must also release the source code. Source code does not have to be released if binaries to modifications are not released to the public. This license highly favors the end users. | ||
| − | *[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html GNU AGPL] is what the FSF suggests for server software. Essentially, it is the GPL with a additional clause that people accessing the software over a network must also get the source. With the popularity of "cloud" services, GPL software can be changed and run at a server without the obligation to release the source code. This license highly favors the end users. | + | *[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html GNU AGPL] is what the FSF suggests for server software.¹ Essentially, it is the GPL with a additional clause that people accessing the software over a network must also get the source. With the popularity of "cloud" services, GPL software can be changed and run at a server without the obligation to release the source code. This license highly favors the end users. |
*[http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html BSD License] is much more permissive than the GPL. You basically can do anything you want. You can even incorporate BSD-licensed code in your closed-source proprietary software, so long as you give the original author(s) credit as appropriate. | *[http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html BSD License] is much more permissive than the GPL. You basically can do anything you want. You can even incorporate BSD-licensed code in your closed-source proprietary software, so long as you give the original author(s) credit as appropriate. | ||
*[https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html Apache License] is known for protecting users against patent suing. | *[https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html Apache License] is known for protecting users against patent suing. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ CC-BY] | *[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ CC-BY] | ||
*[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ CC-BY-SA] - Without the no commercial and no modifications additions, this is a very liberal license. Anyone can use or modify this work, as long as they let others use it and attribute the author. This license lends itself to art better than it does to software. | *[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ CC-BY-SA] - Without the no commercial and no modifications additions, this is a very liberal license. Anyone can use or modify this work, as long as they let others use it and attribute the author. This license lends itself to art better than it does to software. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ¹ [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations How to choose a license for your own work] | ||
Revision as of 16:45, 28 May 2015
Licenses
There are multiple kinds of licenses that software can be released under.
- GNU GPL is what GNU/Linux is released under. Essentially, you are free to do what you want with software released under this code, provided that if you release it to the public you must also release the source code. Source code does not have to be released if binaries to modifications are not released to the public. This license highly favors the end users.
- GNU AGPL is what the FSF suggests for server software.¹ Essentially, it is the GPL with a additional clause that people accessing the software over a network must also get the source. With the popularity of "cloud" services, GPL software can be changed and run at a server without the obligation to release the source code. This license highly favors the end users.
- BSD License is much more permissive than the GPL. You basically can do anything you want. You can even incorporate BSD-licensed code in your closed-source proprietary software, so long as you give the original author(s) credit as appropriate.
- Apache License is known for protecting users against patent suing.
- MIT License
- WTFPL - DO WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE. The name says it all.
- CC-BY
- CC-BY-SA - Without the no commercial and no modifications additions, this is a very liberal license. Anyone can use or modify this work, as long as they let others use it and attribute the author. This license lends itself to art better than it does to software.
