FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software". There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free.[2] FSF's free software and OSI's open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition. The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution, e.g. the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement, which requires the code to be "original" work.[3][4] The OSI does not endorse FSF license analysis (interpretation) as per their disclaimer.[5]
The FSF's Free Software Definition focuses on the user's unrestricted rights to use a program, to study and modify it, to copy it, and redistribute it for any purpose, which are considered by the FSF the four essential freedoms.[6][7] The OSI's open-source criteria focuses on the availability of the source code and the advantages of an unrestricted and community driven development model.[8] Yet, many FOSS licenses, like the Apache License, and all Free Software licenses allow commercial use of FOSS components.[9]
The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license, based on seven subjects or categories. Recent tools like the European Commissions' Joinup Licensing Assistant,[10] makes possible the licenses selection and comparison based on more than 40 subjects or categories, with access to their SPDX identifier and full text. The table below lists the permissions and limitations regarding the following subjects:
Linking - linking of the licensed code with code licensed under a different license (e.g. when the code is provided as a library)
Distribution - distribution of the code to third parties
Modification - modification of the code by a licensee
Patent grant - protection of licensees from patent claims made by code contributors regarding their contribution, and protection of contributors from patent claims made by licensees
Private use - whether modification to the code must be shared with the community or may be used privately (e.g. internal use by a corporation)
Sublicensing - whether modified code may be licensed under a different license (for example a copyright) or must retain the same license under which it was provided
TM grant - use of trademarks associated with the licensed code or its contributors by a licensee
In this table, "permissive" means the software has minimal restrictions on how it can be used, modified, and redistributed, usually including a warranty disclaimer. "Copyleft" means the software requires that its source code be made publicly available and that all provisions in the license be preserved in derivative works.
This table lists for each license what organizations from the FOSS community have approved it – be it as a "free software" or as an "open source" license – , how those organizations categorize it, and the license compatibility between them for a combined or mixed derivative work. Organizations usually approve specific versions of software licenses. For instance, a FSF approval means that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) considers a license to be free-software license. The FSF recommends at least "Compatible with GPL" and preferably copyleft. The OSI recommends a mix of permissive and copyleft licenses, the Apache License 2.0, 2- & 3-clause BSD license, GPL, LGPL, MIT license, MPL 2.0, CDDL and EPL.
^The original version of the Artistic License is defined as non-free because it is overly vague, not because of the substance of the license. The FSF encourages projects to use the Clarified Artistic License instead.
^But can be made compatible by upgrading to GPLv3 via the optional "or later" clause added in most GPLv2 license texts.
^Open source licenses - Licenses by Name on opensource.org
^"Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved August 8, 2011.
^"Various Licenses and Comments about Them: NASA Open Source Agreement". Free Software Foundation.
^"Licenses by Name". Open Source Initiative. 16 September 2022.
^"Other Resources & Disclaimer". Open Source Initiative. While the OSI acknowledges these as potentially helpful resources for the community, it does not endorse any content, contributors or license interpretations from these websites.[...]The OSI does not promote or exclusively favor any of the above resources, but instead mentions them as a neutral, separate third-party.
^"Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement", Free Software Foundation, Inc
^"What is Free Software", Free Software Foundation, Inc
^opensource.org/about "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."
^Popp, Dr. Karl Michael (2015). Best Practices for commercial use of open source software. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand. ISBN978-3738619096.
^"Joinup Licensing Assistant". Retrieved 31 March 2020.
^"How to Use Popular Open Source Licenses, Explained".
^Greenstein, Daniel; Wheeler, Brad (1 March 2007). "Open Source Collaboration in Higher Education: Guidelines and Report of the Licensing and Policy Framework Summit for Software Sharing in Higher Education" – via scholarworks.iu.edu.
^Free Software Foundation. "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
^Free Software Foundation. "To be GPL-Compatible has to be compatible with Licenses GNU GPLv3 and GNU GPLv2 – Free Software Foundation". Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
^. Open Source Initiative. Archived from the original on 29 November 2009. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
^"[License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD". Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 2019-02-11.
^"Various Licenses and Comments About Them - Common Development and Distribution License". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2006-12-31.
^Michael Larabel (6 October 2015). "Ubuntu Is Planning To Make The ZFS File-System A "Standard" Offering". Phoronix.
^Dustin Kirkland (18 February 2016). "ZFS Licensing and Linux". Ubuntu Insights. Canonical.
^Are GPLv2 and CDDL incompatible? on hansenpartnership.com by James E.J. Bottomley "What the above analysis shows is that even though we presumed combination of GPLv2 and CDDL works to be a technical violation, there's no way actually to prosecute such a violation because we can’t develop a convincing theory of harm resulting. Because this makes it impossible to take the case to court, effectively it must be concluded that the combination of GPLv2 and CDDL, provided you’re following a GPLv2 compliance regime for all the code, is allowable." (23 February 2016)
^Moglen, Eben; Choudhary, Mishi (26 February 2016). "The Linux Kernel, CDDL and Related Issues".
^GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux on sfconservancy.org by Bradley M. Kuhn and Karen M. Sandler (February 25, 2016)
^ abc"Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation".
^"Frequently Answered Questions". opensource.org. 21 October 2007. CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved
^ ab"Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?". gnu.org. Retrieved 3 June 2014. No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL "version 2 or later," that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
comparison, free, open, source, software, licenses, this, comparison, only, covers, software, licenses, which, have, linked, wikipedia, article, details, which, approved, least, following, expert, groups, free, software, foundation, open, source, initiative, d. This comparison only covers software licenses which have a linked Wikipedia article for details and which are approved by at least one of the following expert groups the Free Software Foundation the Open Source Initiative the Debian Project and the Fedora Project For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software see List of free content licences Contents 1 FOSS licenses 2 General comparison 3 Approvals 4 See also 5 ReferencesFOSS licenses editFOSS stands for Free and Open Source Software There is no one universally agreed upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses The Open Source Initiative OSI is one such organization keeping a list of open source licenses 1 The Free Software Foundation FSF maintains a list of what it considers free 2 FSF s free software and OSI s open source licenses together are called FOSS licenses There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price type of contribution and origin of the contribution e g the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement which requires the code to be original work 3 4 The OSI does not endorse FSF license analysis interpretation as per their disclaimer 5 The FSF s Free Software Definition focuses on the user s unrestricted rights to use a program to study and modify it to copy it and redistribute it for any purpose which are considered by the FSF the four essential freedoms 6 7 The OSI s open source criteria focuses on the availability of the source code and the advantages of an unrestricted and community driven development model 8 Yet many FOSS licenses like the Apache License and all Free Software licenses allow commercial use of FOSS components 9 General comparison editThis article may be confusing or unclear to readers In particular values used in the below table are not defined and some are ambiguous Please help clarify the article There is a discussion about this on Talk Comparison of free and open source software licences General comparison confusing May 2020 Learn how and when to remove this template message For a simpler comparison across the most common licenses see free software license comparison The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license based on seven subjects or categories Recent tools like the European Commissions Joinup Licensing Assistant 10 makes possible the licenses selection and comparison based on more than 40 subjects or categories with access to their SPDX identifier and full text The table below lists the permissions and limitations regarding the following subjects Linking linking of the licensed code with code licensed under a different license e g when the code is provided as a library Distribution distribution of the code to third parties Modification modification of the code by a licensee Patent grant protection of licensees from patent claims made by code contributors regarding their contribution and protection of contributors from patent claims made by licensees Private use whether modification to the code must be shared with the community or may be used privately e g internal use by a corporation Sublicensing whether modified code may be licensed under a different license for example a copyright or must retain the same license under which it was provided TM grant use of trademarks associated with the licensed code or its contributors by a licenseeIn this table permissive means the software has minimal restrictions on how it can be used modified and redistributed usually including a warranty disclaimer Copyleft means the software requires that its source code be made publicly available and that all provisions in the license be preserved in derivative works License Author Latest version Publication date Linking Distribution Modification Patent grant Private use Sublicensing TM grantAcademic Free License 11 Lawrence E Rosen 3 0 2002 Permissive Permissive Permissive Yes Yes Permissive NoAffero General Public License Affero Inc 2 0 2007 Copylefted 12 Copyleft except for the GNU AGPL 12 Copyleft 12 Yes 12 Apache License Apache Software Foundation 2 0 2004 Permissive 13 Permissive 13 Permissive 13 Yes 13 Yes 13 Permissive 13 No 13 Apple Public Source License Apple Computer 2 0 2003 08 06 August 6 2003 Permissive Limited Artistic License Larry Wall 2 0 2000 With restrictions With restrictions With restrictions No Permissive With restrictions NoBeerware Poul Henning Kamp 42 1987 Permissive Permissive Permissive No Permissive Permissive NoBSD License Regents of the University of California 3 0 Permissive 14 Permissive 14 Permissive 14 Manually 14 Yes 14 Permissive 14 Manually 14 Boost Software License 1 0 2003 08 17 August 17 2003 Permissive Permissive Creative Commons Zero Creative Commons 1 0 2009 Public Domain 15 16 Public Domain Public Domain No Public Domain Public Domain NoCC BY Creative Commons 4 0 2002 Permissive 17 Permissive Permissive No Yes Permissive NoCC BY SA Creative Commons 4 0 2002 Copylefted 17 Copylefted Copylefted No Yes Copylefted 18 NoCeCILL CEA CNRS INRIA 2 1 2013 06 21 June 21 2013 Permissive Permissive Permissive No Permissive With restrictions NoCommon Development and Distribution License Sun Microsystems 1 0 2004 12 December 1 2004 Permissive Limited Common Public License IBM 1 0 2001 05 May 2001 Permissive Copylefted Cryptix General License Cryptix Foundation 1995 Permissive Permissive Permissive Manually Yes ManuallyEclipse Public License Eclipse Foundation 2 0 2017 08 24 August 24 2017 Permissive 19 Copylefted 19 20 Copylefted 19 Yes 19 Yes 19 Copylefted 19 No 19 Educational Community License Indiana University 21 1 0 2007 Permissive Permissive European Union Public Licence European Commission 1 2 2017 05 May 2017 Permissive according to EU law Recitals 10 amp 15 Directive 2009 24 EC Copylefted with an explicit compatibility list 22 Copylefted with an explicit compatibility list 22 Yes 23 Yes 23 Copylefted with an explicit compatibility list 22 No 23 FreeBSD The FreeBSD project 1999 04 April 1999 Permissive 24 Permissive 24 Permissive 24 Manually 24 Permissive 24 Permissive 24 Manually 24 GNU Affero General Public License Free Software Foundation 3 0 2007 GNU GPLv3 only 25 Copylefted 26 Copylefted 26 Yes 27 No network usage 27 Copylefted 26 Yes 27 GNU General Public License Free Software Foundation 3 0 2007 06 June 2007 GPLv3 compatible only 28 29 Copylefted 26 Copylefted 26 Yes 30 Yes 30 Copylefted 26 Yes 30 GNU Lesser General Public License Free Software Foundation 3 0 2007 06 June 2007 With restrictions 31 Copylefted 26 Copylefted 26 Yes 32 Yes Copylefted 26 Yes 32 IBM Public License IBM 1 0 1999 08 August 1999 Copylefted Copylefted ISC license Internet Systems Consortium 2003 06 June 2003 Permissive Permissive Permissive Manually Permissive Permissive ManuallyLaTeX Project Public License LaTeX project 1 3c Permissive Permissive Microsoft Public License Microsoft Copylefted Copylefted Copylefted No Permissive NoMIT license X11 license MIT 1988 Permissive 33 Permissive 33 Permissive 33 Manually 33 Yes 33 Permissive 33 Manually 33 Mozilla Public License Mozilla Foundation 2 0 2012 03 January 3 2012 Permissive 34 Copylefted 34 Copylefted 34 Yes 34 Yes 34 Copylefted 34 No 34 Netscape Public License Netscape 1 1 Limited Limited Open Software License 11 Lawrence Rosen 3 0 2005 Permissive Copylefted Copylefted Yes Yes Copylefted OpenSSL license OpenSSL Project Permissive Permissive PHP License 35 PHP Group 3 01 2019 With restrictions With restrictions With restrictions Yes Yes With restrictions ManuallyPython Software Foundation License Python Software Foundation 3 9 1 2020 10 05 May 10 2020 Permissive Permissive Permissive Yes Permissive Permissive NoQ Public License Trolltech Limited Limited Sleepycat License Sleepycat Software 1996 Permissive With restrictions Permissive No Yes No NoUnlicense unlicense org 1 2010 12 December 2010 Permissive Public domain Permissive Public domain Permissive Public domain Permissive Public domain Permissive Public domain W3C Software Notice and License W3C 20021231 2002 12 31 December 31 2002 Permissive Permissive Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License WTFPL Banlu Kemiyatorn Sam Hocevar 2 2004 12 December 2004 Permissive Public domain Permissive Public domain Permissive Public domain No Yes Yes NoXCore Open Source Licensealso separate Hardware License Agreement XMOS 2011 02 February 2011 Permissive Permissive Permissive Manually Yes Permissive XFree86 1 1 License The XFree86 Project Inc Permissive Permissive zlib libpng license Jean Loup Gailly and Mark Adler Permissive Permissive Other licenses that don t have information license Author Latest version Publication dateEiffel Forum License NICE 2 2002Intel Open Source License Intel Corporation RealNetworks Public Source License RealNetworks Reciprocal Public License Scott Shattuck 1 5 2007Sun Industry Standards Source License Sun Microsystems Sun Public License Sun Microsystems Sybase Open Watcom Public License Open Watcom 2003 01 28Zope Public License Zope Foundation 2 1 Server Side Public License MongoDB 1 0 2018 10 16Approvals editThis table lists for each license what organizations from the FOSS community have approved it be it as a free software or as an open source license how those organizations categorize it and the license compatibility between them for a combined or mixed derivative work Organizations usually approve specific versions of software licenses For instance a FSF approval means that the Free Software Foundation FSF considers a license to be free software license The FSF recommends at least Compatible with GPL and preferably copyleft The OSI recommends a mix of permissive and copyleft licenses the Apache License 2 0 2 amp 3 clause BSD license GPL LGPL MIT license MPL 2 0 CDDL and EPL License and version FSF approval 36 GPL v3 compatibility 37 38 39 40 41 OSI approval 42 Debian approval 43 44 Fedora approval 45 Academic Free License Yes No Yes No YesAffero General Public License 3 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes YesApache License 1 x Yes No Yes Yes YesApache License 2 0 Yes GPLv3 only 46 Yes Yes YesApple Public Source License 1 x No 47 No Yes No NoApple Public Source License 2 0 Yes No Yes No YesArtistic License 1 0 No note 1 No Yes Yes NoArtistic License 2 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes YesBeerware License see Informal license section 48 see Informal license section 48 No No Yes 49 Original BSD license Yes No No 50 Yes YesRevised BSD license Yes Yes Yes Yes YesSimplified BSD license Yes Yes Yes Yes YesZero Clause BSD License Yes 51 Boost Software License Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCeCILL Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCommon Development and Distribution License Yes GPLv3 GPLv2 disputed 52 53 54 55 56 57 Yes Yes YesCommon Public License Yes No Yes Yes YesCreative Commons Zero Yes 58 Yes 58 No 59 Partial 60 61 Yes 62 Creative Commons BY SA 4 0 Yes GPLv3 63 Yes Cryptix General License Yes Yes Yes Yes YesEclipse Public License Yes No Yes Yes YesEducational Community License Yes Yes 64 Yes No YesEiffel Forum License 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes YesEuropean Union Public Licence Yes Yes 22 Yes Yes YesGNU Affero General Public License Yes Yes 25 65 Yes Yes YesGNU General Public License v2 Yes No note 2 66 Yes Yes YesGNU General Public License v3 Yes Yes note 3 66 Yes Yes YesGNU Lesser General Public License Yes Yes Yes Yes YesGNU Free Documentation License Yes No 67 Yes 68 No 69 NoIBM Public License Yes No Yes Yes YesIntel Open Source License Yes Yes Yes No NoISC license Yes 70 Yes Yes Yes YesLaTeX Project Public License Yes No Yes Yes YesMicrosoft Public License Yes No Yes No YesMicrosoft Reciprocal License Yes No Yes No YesMIT license X11 license Yes Yes Yes Yes YesMozilla Public License 1 1 Yes No Yes Yes YesMozilla Public License 2 0 Yes Yes note 4 71 Yes Yes YesNASA Open Source Agreement No No Yes NoNetscape Public License Yes No No No YesOpen Software License Yes No Yes No YesOpenSSL license Yes No No Yes YesPHP License Yes No Yes Yes YesPython Software Foundation License 2 0 1 2 1 1 and newer Yes Yes Yes Yes YesQ Public License Yes No Yes No YesReciprocal Public License 1 5 No No Yes No NoSleepycat License Yes Yes Yes Yes YesSun Industry Standards Source License Yes No Yes No YesSun Public License Yes No Yes No YesSybase Open Watcom Public License No No Yes No NoUnlicense Yes 72 Yes 58 Yes 73 Yes 62 W3C Software Notice and License Yes Yes Yes Yes YesDo What The Fuck You Want To Public License WTFPL Yes note 5 Yes No 74 Yes YesXFree86 1 1 License Yes Yes 75 No No Nozlib libpng license Yes Yes Yes Yes YesZope Public License 1 0 Yes No No No YesZope Public License 2 0 Yes Yes Yes No Yes The original version of the Artistic License is defined as non free because it is overly vague not because of the substance of the license The FSF encourages projects to use the Clarified Artistic License instead But can be made compatible by upgrading to GPLv3 via the optional or later clause added in most GPLv2 license texts But not with GPLv2 without or later clause MPL 2 0 is GPL compatible unless marked Incompatible with Secondary Licenses Listed as WTFPL See also edit nbsp Free and open source software portalFree software Free software license List of free and open source software packages List of open source hardware projects List of open source video games Open source license Open source software Source available softwareReferences edit Open source licenses Licenses by Name on opensource org Various Licenses and Comments about Them Free Software Foundation Retrieved August 8 2011 Various Licenses and Comments about Them NASA Open Source Agreement Free Software Foundation Licenses by Name Open Source Initiative 16 September 2022 Other Resources amp Disclaimer Open Source Initiative While the OSI acknowledges these as potentially helpful resources for the community it does not endorse any content contributors or license interpretations from these websites The OSI does not promote or exclusively favor any of the above resources but instead mentions them as a neutral separate third party Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement Free Software Foundation Inc What is Free Software Free Software Foundation Inc opensource org about Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process The promise of open source is better quality higher reliability more flexibility lower cost and an end to predatory vendor lock in Popp Dr Karl Michael 2015 Best Practices for commercial use of open source software Norderstedt Germany Books on Demand ISBN 978 3738619096 Joinup Licensing Assistant Retrieved 31 March 2020 a b OSL 3 0 Explained a b c d affero org Affero General Public License version 2 AGPLv2 a b c d e f g the section 4 of the apache license version 2 a b c d e f g BSD license 22 May 2011 Using CC0 for public domain software Creative Commons April 15 2011 Retrieved May 10 2011 Various Licenses and Comments about Them GNU Project Retrieved April 4 2015 a b cc by 4 0 and cc by sa 4 0 added to our list of free licenses 2015 Compatible Licenses Creative Commons a b c d e f g Eclipse Public License v 2 0 How to Use Popular Open Source Licenses Explained Greenstein Daniel Wheeler Brad 1 March 2007 Open Source Collaboration in Higher Education Guidelines and Report of the Licensing and Policy Framework Summit for Software Sharing in Higher Education via scholarworks iu edu a b c d EUPL compatible open source licences a b c EUPL text 1 1 amp 1 2 a b c d e f g FreeBSD license a b https www gnu org licenses agpl html section 13 of the GNU AGPLv3 license a b c d e f g h i https www gnu org copyleft gpl howto html GNU licenses copyleft a b c the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 https www gnu org licenses gpl faq html IfLibraryIsGPL If library is under GPLv3 https www gnu org licenses gpl faq html LinkingWithGPL Linking with the GNU GPLv3 a b c the GNU General Public License version 3 https www gnu org licenses lgpl html the section 4 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 a b the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 a b c d e f g MIT License 31 October 2006 a b c d e f g MPL version 2 PHP License 3 01 Free Software Foundation Various Licenses and Comments about Them Licenses Free Software Foundation Free Software Foundation To be GPL Compatible has to be compatible with Licenses GNU GPLv3 and GNU GPLv2 Free Software Foundation Software Licenses Free Software Foundation Free Software Foundation GPL Compatible Free Software Licenses Free Software Foundation Software Licenses Free Software Foundation Free Software Foundation GPL Incompatible Free Software Licenses Free Software Foundation Software Licenses Free Software Foundation Free Software Foundation GPL compatible Definition by FSF Free Software Foundation GPL compatible Definition Free Software Foundation Free Software Foundation GPL compatible Definition previous version by FSF Free Software Foundation GPL compatible Definition Free Software Foundation Open Source Initiative 16 September 2022 The Approved Licenses License Information Open Source Initiative Debian Debian License information Licenses Debian The DFSG and Software Licenses Debian wiki Fedora Licensing FedoraProject Licenses Fedora Project Free Software Foundation Apache License Version 2 0 Licenses Free Software Foundation Apple Public Source License APSL version 1 x Retrieved 2013 08 07 a b Various Licenses and Comments about Them Free Software Foundation 2016 01 05 Retrieved 2016 01 05 Licensing Beerware Fedora Project Retrieved 2015 03 10 The BSD License Licensing Open Source Initiative Archived from the original on 29 November 2009 Retrieved 1 February 2021 License review Please rename Free Public License 1 0 0 to 0BSD Open Source Initiative Retrieved 2019 02 11 Various Licenses and Comments About Them Common Development and Distribution License Free Software Foundation Retrieved 2006 12 31 Michael Larabel 6 October 2015 Ubuntu Is Planning To Make The ZFS File System A Standard Offering Phoronix Dustin Kirkland 18 February 2016 ZFS Licensing and Linux Ubuntu Insights Canonical Are GPLv2 and CDDL incompatible on hansenpartnership com by James E J Bottomley What the above analysis shows is that even though we presumed combination of GPLv2 and CDDL works to be a technical violation there s no way actually to prosecute such a violation because we can t develop a convincing theory of harm resulting Because this makes it impossible to take the case to court effectively it must be concluded that the combination of GPLv2 and CDDL provided you re following a GPLv2 compliance regime for all the code is allowable 23 February 2016 Moglen Eben Choudhary Mishi 26 February 2016 The Linux Kernel CDDL and Related Issues GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux on sfconservancy org by Bradley M Kuhn and Karen M Sandler February 25 2016 a b c Various Licenses and Comments about Them GNU Project Free Software Foundation Frequently Answered Questions opensource org 21 October 2007 CC0 was not explicitly rejected but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved Re Creative Commons CC0 License information a b Licensing Main Creative Commons BY SA 4 0 declared one way compatible with GNU GPL version 3 Free Software Foundation working together for free software Free Software Foundation Educational Community License 2 0 Licenses Free Software Foundation https www gnu org licenses We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software a b Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2 gnu org Retrieved 3 June 2014 No Some of the requirements in GPLv3 such as the requirement to provide Installation Information do not exist in GPLv2 As a result the licenses are not compatible if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses you would violate section 6 of GPLv2 However if code is released under GPL version 2 or later that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits Re Proposed statement WRT GNU FDL SPDX License List Software Package Data Exchange SPDX General Resolution Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main Free Software Foundation A Quick Guide to GPLv3 Licenses Free Software Foundation Mozilla Foundation MPL 2 0 FAQ Licenses Mozilla Foundation Various Licenses and Comments about Them GNU Project Free Software Foundation License review Request for legacy approval The Unlicense OSI Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday March 4 2009 4 May 2009 Free Software Foundation XFree86 1 1 License Licenses Free Software Foundation Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Comparison of free and open source software licenses amp oldid 1174656219, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
