Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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. License and version FSF approval
As of 2015, according to Black Duck Software [12] and GitHub, [13] the Apache license is the third most popular license in the FOSS domain after MIT License and GPLv2. The OpenBSD project does not consider the Apache License 2.0 to be an acceptable free license because of its patent provisions. The OpenBSD policy believes that when the license ...
For example, (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) means that one can choose between Apache-2.0 (Apache License) or MIT (MIT license). On the other hand, (Apache-2.0 AND MIT) means that both licenses apply. There is also a "+" operator which, when applied to a license, means that future versions of the license apply as well. For example, Apache-1.1+ means that ...
The Apache License version 2.0 [3] is a similarly permissive license that includes an explicit contributor's patent license. Of specific relevance to US jurisdictions, the MIT license uses the terms "sell" and "use" that are also used in defining the rights of a patent holder in Title 35 of the United States Code section 154.
The Apache License is more comprehensive and explicit. The Apache Software Foundation wrote it for their Apache HTTP Server. Version 2, published in 2004, offers legal advantages over simple licenses and provides similar grants. [55] While the BSD and MIT licenses offer an implicit patent grant, [56] the Apache License includes a section on ...
Project Current stable version Release date License; Apache Click: 2.3.0 2011-03-27 Apache 2.0 : Apache OFBiz: 18.12.17 [11] : 2024-11-11; 56 days ago Apache 2.0 Apache Shale
In 2000, the "Do What the Fuck You Want To Public License" was released as a public-domain-equivalent license for software. [2] It is distinguished among software licenses by its informal style and lack of a warranty disclaimer. In 2016, according to Black Duck Software, [note 1] the WTFPL was used by less than 1% of FOSS projects.
The Open Source Initiative defines a permissive software license as a "non-copyleft license that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify and redistribute". [6] GitHub's choosealicense website describes the permissive MIT license as "[letting] people do anything they want with your code as long as they provide attribution back to you and don't hold you liable."