Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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]
The proliferation of open-source licenses has compounded license compatibility issues, but all share some features: allowing redistribution and derivative works under the same license, unrestricted access to the source code, and nondiscrimination between different uses—in particular, allowing commercial use.
Permissive licenses, also known as academic licenses, [49] allow recipients to use, modify, and distribute software with no obligation to provide source code. Institutions created these licenses to distribute their creations to the public. [49] Permissive licenses are usually short, often less than a page of text. They impose few conditions.
This is a list of free and open-source software (FOSS) packages, computer software licensed under free software licenses and open-source licenses.Software that fits the Free Software Definition may be more appropriately called free software; the GNU project in particular objects to their works being referred to as open-source. [1]
IDE License Windows Linux macOS Other platforms Debugger Assemblers Auto-complete Macros/templates Latest stable release; Fresh: EUPL and 2-clause BSD : Yes Yes No Unknown No FASM: Unknown
Each license is identified by a full name, such as "Mozilla Public License 2.0" and a short identifier, here "MPL-2.0". Licenses can be combined by operators AND and OR, and grouping (, ). For example, (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) means that one can choose between Apache-2.0 (Apache License) or MIT (MIT license).
A non-free license is used to limit what free software movement advocates consider to be the essential freedoms. A license, whether providing open-source code or not, that does not stipulate the "four software freedoms", [3] are not considered "free" by the free software movement. A closed source license is one that limits only the availability ...
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."