Since a simple Hello World programwill satisfy the requirement, it is harmless. Its only unusual requirement isthat when selling the font, you must redistribute it bundled withsome software, rather than alone. This is acceptable for fonts as fonts can bealiased or renamed using free software tools, but it's very annoyingand could be overly burdensome in other contexts. It has an unfortunate condition requiring that derivative worksnot use or include the name of the original work as a program name,font name or file name.
The License terms were rewritten to attempt to ensure that international laws will interpret the license as FSF intends. If you'd like to advertise your use of a particular license,feel free to use one of our logos. If you might be interested in joining up with theGNU Project in this way, please see our GNU software evaluation page for moreinformation and a short questionnaire. It is also possible to make your program a GNU package, a part of theGNU Project.
This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license,compatible with the GNU GPL. The patent termination provision is a good thing, whichis why we recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programsover other lax permissive licenses. One of the reasons that FSF released GPLv3, is an attempt to clarify what constitutions a "work based on another work" which triggers the licenses copyleft obligations to share the new software under the terms of the GPLv3 license.
Versioning
- The lack of requirement to preserve copyright notices and the license noticedoes not necessarily mean it is safe to remove them.
- The PPL has several provisions designed specifically for artisticperformances, and we have nothing against its use for art works;however, people reportedly advocate its use for software too.
- Those restrictions are probably not legallyenforceable under US copyright law, but they might be in some countries;even asserting them is outrageous.
- It hassome attribution requirements which make it incompatible withGPLv2.
- There are currently several variants of XFree86, and only some ofthem use this license.
- This is acceptable for fonts as fonts can bealiased or renamed using free software tools, but it’s very annoyingand could be overly burdensome in other contexts.
The “Commons Clause” is a nonfree license because itforbids selling copies of the program, and even running the program aspart of implementing any commercial service. Versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 are not freesoftware licenses. Such a restriction in a software license,in the name of any cause whatsoever, imposes too much power over users. Inmost cases it is better to copyleft your betory casino bonus code to assure that freedom reaches allusers of the code. In order for a program to be free, its copyright holders mustexplicitly grant users the fouressential freedoms.
GNU GPLv3 compatibility
- The License terms were rewritten to attempt to ensure that international laws will interpret the license as FSF intends.
- The GNU AGPL is flexible enoughthat you can choose a method that’s suitable for your specificprogram—see section 13 for details.
- For interactive programs, it is usually a good idea to make theprogram display a brief notice about copyright and copying permissionwhen it starts up.
- The GPL is not amember of that class, so the Jabber license does not permit relicensingunder the GPL.
- This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1.0 and the GNU GPL—in other words,you can choose either of those two licenses.
- The Personal Public License Version 3a is a nonfree license because itdenies some users (organizations, governments, businesses) the fourfreedoms.
This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with theGPL. This is a free and copyleft license meant for general data.Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it isincompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL; however, it isfine to use for other kinds of data. This license does not qualify as free, because there arerestrictions on distributing modified versions. It is a copyleft free documentation licenseprovided the copyright holder does not exercise any ofthe “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI of the license.But if either of the options is invoked, the license becomesnonfree.
GNU GPL License Terms
We have not written a full analysis of this license, but it is a freesoftware license, with less stringent requirements on distribution thanLPPL 1.2 (described next). (Of course, any program ispotentially threatened by patents, and the only way to end that is tochange patent law to make software safe from patents.) It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating itdoes not grant you any patent licenses, with an invitation to buysome. It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPLversion 3 or any later version, because there is a way to relicenseto the CeCILL v2, and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to relicense to anyversion of the GNU GPL.
This is the license used throughout the GNU and FSF web sites.This license provides much the same permissions as our verbatimcopying license, but it's much more detailed. This was the license used throughout the GNU web site for manyyears. Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, andso on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works forpractical use like software and documentation. Neither we nor SILrecommend the use of this license for anything other thanfonts.
How to Use GNU Licenses for Your Own Software
Section 9.4 of the CeCILL commits the program's developers to certainforms of cooperation with the users, if someone attacks the programwith a patent. The X11 license and the modified BSD license aremore or less equivalent. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 licenseinstead.
The following licensesare free software licenses, butare notcompatible with the GNU GPL. If you want a lax permissivelicense for a small program, we recommendthe X11 license. The license does provide the ability to licensepatents along with the software work, however, we still recommend theApache 2.0 license for avoiding patent treachery when choosing to putyour work under a lax license. Ifyou want to use a lax permissive license for your project, please useExpat license for a small program and the Apache2.0 license for a substantial program.
Our comments there apply here as well; this is aGPL-incompatible, partial copyleft free software license. It is a non-copyleft freesoftware license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL, and has practical problemslike those of the original BSD license. This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, which isincompatible with the GNU GPL because of details rather than anymajor policy. This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible withthe GNU GPL. The combination results in a copyleft free softwarelicense that is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
You are welcome to use any of our licenses even if your programis not a GNU package; indeed, we hope you will. For example, if your program is a webapplication, its interface could display a “Source” link thatleads users to an archive of the code. For interactive programs, it is usually a good idea to make theprogram display a brief notice about copyright and copying permissionwhen it starts up. If a release has one statement that “This program is releasedunder license FOO,” in a central place such as the README file,that makes the situation clear for that release. Please note that, since theLGPL is a set of additional permissions on top of the GPL, it's crucialto include both licenses so users have all the materials they need tounderstand their rights.
That denies freedom 0.Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any softwarethat has been released under it. It is not a free softwarelicense, because it requires sending every published modified versionto a specific initial developer. This license is nonfree because of Article 3, which arguablyincludes a requirement not to violate the license of anyprogram that the user runs—even proprietary programs. Please don't use this license, and weurge you to avoid any software that has been released under it.
This is a license intended for use oncopylefted free documentation. The following licenses qualify as freedocumentation licenses. The license prohibitsdistribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software tobe included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are soldby companies and by organizations. If a university tries to impose a license like this on the softwareyou are writing, don't give up hope.
The following licenses do not qualify as free softwarelicenses. This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL.The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by thelaws of the State of Virginia, in the USA, and the GPL does not permitthis. This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. Recent versions of OpenSSL (from 3.0.0 on) are released under the Apache License 2.0. Recent versions of the Open Software License havea term which requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent tothe license.
We would like to list all free software programs in the FreeSoftware Directory, including all programs licensed under the GPL (anyversion). If you have copied code from other programs covered by the samelicense, copy their copyright notices too. Ifthe developer is refusing users patent licenses, the program is ineffect a trap for users and users should avoid the program. If that is not possible for anyreason, CC0 also provides a lax, permissive license as a fallback.Both public domain works and the lax license provided by CC0 arecompatible with the GNU GPL.