Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The primary difference between it and the New BSD (3-clause) License is that it omits the non-endorsement clause. The FreeBSD version of the license also adds a further disclaimer about views and opinions expressed in the software, [ 15 ] though this is not commonly included by other 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."
The University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License combines text from both the MIT and BSD licenses; the license grant and disclaimer are taken from the MIT License. The ISC license contains similarities to both the MIT and simplified BSD licenses, the biggest difference being that language deemed unnecessary by the Berne Convention is omitted.
A difference between the GPL and other reciprocal licenses is how they define derivative works covered by the reciprocal provisions. The GPL, and the Affero License (AGPL) based on it, use a broad scope to describe affected works. The AGPL extends the reciprocal obligation in the GPL to cover software made available over a network.
A GitHub study in 2015 on their statistical data found that the MIT license was the most prominent FOSS license on that platform. [38] In June 2016 an analysis of the Fedora Project's packages showed as most used licenses the GPL family, followed by MIT, BSD, the LGP family, Artistic (for Perl packages), LPPL (for texlive packages
MIT License: Yes No No Microsoft: 2015-10-01 MonoDevelop: LGPL: Yes Yes Yes Xamarin and the Mono community FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris: 2016-01-28 PBASIC Stamp Editor: Proprietary: Yes No Yes Parallax Inc: 2014-07-02 [4] PureBasic: Proprietary: Yes Yes Yes Fantaisie Software: AmigaOS: 2024-03-27 [5] SharpDevelop: MIT [6] Yes No No ICSharpCode ...
The BSD Zero Clause License [15] removes half a sentence from the ISC license, leaving only an unconditional grant of rights and a warranty disclaimer. [16] It is listed by the Software Package Data Exchange as the Zero Clause BSD license, with the SPDX identifier 0BSD. [17] It was first used by Rob Landley in Toybox and is OSI-approved.