Comparison of free and open-source software licenses
This is a comparison of published free software licenses and open source licenses. The comparison only covers software licenses with a linked article for details, approved by at least one expert group at the FSF, the OSI, the Debian project, or the Fedora project.
Free software / open-source licenses
The terms "free software licenses" and "open-source licenses" are usually interchangeable. While there is no one universally agreed-upon definition of free software, various groups that maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative is one such organization keeping a list of "open source" licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of what it considers free.[2]
Free Software - provides freedoms to use, study, share (copy), and modify the software. Open-source license criteria focuses on the availability of the source code and the possibility to use it, while free software licenses focuses on the aspect that code stays "free", the preventation that code becomes proprietary.[3][4]
General comparison
The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license.
License | Author | Latest version | Publication date | Linking | Distribution | Modification | Patent grant | Private use | Sublicensing | No trademark |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Academic Free License | Lawrence E. Rosen | 3 | 2002 | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Apache License | Apache Software Foundation | 2.0 | 2004 | Permissive[5] | Permissive[5] | Permissive[5] | Yes[5] | Yes[5] | Permissive[5] | No[5] |
Apple Public Source License | Apple Computer | 2.0 | August 6, 2003 | Permissive | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Artistic License | Larry Wall | 2.0 | 2000 | With restrictions | ? | With restrictions | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Beerware | Poul-Henning Kamp | 42 | 1987 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Berkeley Database License | Oracle Corporation | ? | February 7, 2008 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
BSD License | Regents of the University of California | 3.0 | ? | Permissive[6] | Permissive[6] | Permissive[6] | manually[6] | Yes[6] | Permissive[6] | Yes[6] |
Boost Software License | ? | 1.0 | August 17, 2003 | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
CeCILL | CEA / CNRS / INRIA | 2.0 | May 21, 2005 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Common Development and Distribution License | Sun Microsystems | 1.0 | December 1, 2004 | Permissive | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Code Project Open License | The Code Project | 1.0 | 2007 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Common Public License | IBM | 1.0 | May 2001 | Copylefted | ? | Copylefted | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Cryptix General License | Cryptix Foundation | ? | 1995 | Yes | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | ? | Yes |
Eclipse Public License | Eclipse Foundation | 1.0 | February 2004 | Limited[7] | Limited[7] | Limited[7] | Yes[7] | Yes[7] | Limited[7] | Yes[7] |
Educational Community License | ? | 1.0 | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Eiffel Forum License | NICE | 2 | 2002 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
EUPL | European Commission | 1.1 | January 2009 | Limited | ? | With an explicit compatibility list | ? | ? | ? | ? |
GNU Affero General Public License | Free Software Foundation | 3.0 | 2007 | GNU GPLv3 only[8] | Copylefted[9] | Copylefted[9] | Copylefted[10] | No[10] | Copylefted[9] | Yes[10] |
GNU General Public License | Free Software Foundation | 3.0 | June 2007 | GPLv3 compatible only[11][12] | Copylefted[9] | Copylefted[9] | Copylefted[13] | Yes[13] | Copylefted[9] | Yes[13] |
GNU Lesser General Public License | Free Software Foundation | 3.0 | June 2007 | With restrictions[14] | Copylefted[9] | Copylefted[9] | Copylefted[15] | Yes | Copylefted[9] | Yes[15] |
IBM Public License | IBM | 1.0 | August 1999 | Copylefted | ? | Copylefted | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Intel Open Source License | Intel Corporation | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
ISC license | Internet Systems Consortium | ? | June 2003 | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
LaTeX Project Public License | LaTeX project | 1.3c | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
MIT license / X11 license | MIT | N/A | 1988 | Permissive[16] | Permissive[16] | Permissive[16] | No[16] | Yes[16] | Permissive[16] | Yes[16] |
Mozilla Public License | Mozilla Foundation | 2.0 | January 3, 2012 | Permissive[17] | Copylefted[17] | Copylefted[17] | Yes[17] | Yes[17] | Copylefted[17] | Yes[17] |
Netscape Public License | Netscape | 1.1 | ? | Limited | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Open Software License | Lawrence Rosen | 3.0 | 2005 | Permissive | ? | Copylefted | ? | ? | ? | ? |
OpenSSL license | OpenSSL Project | ? | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
PHP License | PHP Group | 3.01 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Python Software Foundation License | Python Software Foundation | 2 | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Q Public License | Trolltech | ? | ? | Limited | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Reciprocal Public License | Scott Shattuck | 1.5 | 2007 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Sun Industry Standards Source License | Sun Microsystems | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Sun Public License | Sun Microsystems | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Sybase Open Watcom Public License | Open Watcom | N/A | 2003-01-28 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
W3C Software Notice and License | W3C | 20021231 | December 31, 2002 | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) | Sam Hocevar | 2 | December 2004 | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
XCore Open Source License | XMOS | ? | February 2011 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
XFree86 1.1 License | The XFree86 Project, Inc | ? | ? | Permissive | ? | Permissive | ? | ? | ? | ? |
zlib/libpng license | Jean-Loup Gailly and Mark Adler | ? | ? | Permissive | ? | Limited | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Zope Public License | Zope Foundation | 2.1 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Approvals
This table lists for each license what organizations from the free software community have approved it – be it as a "free software" or as an "open source" license – and how those organizations categorize it. Organizations usually approve specific versions of software licenses. FSF approval means that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) considers the license free software as they don't approve of proprietary software, however they also recommend that licenses be at least "Compatible with GPL" and preferably copyleft (usually).
License and version | FSF approval [18] |
GPL compatibility [19][20][21][22][23] |
OSI approval [24] |
Copyfree approval [25][26] |
Debian approval [27][28] |
Fedora approval [29] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Academic Free License | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Apache License 1.x | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Apache License 2.0 | Yes | Yes[30] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Apple Public Source License 1.x | No[31] | No | Yes | No | No | No |
Apple Public Source License 2.0 | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Artistic License 1.0 | No[note 1] | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
Artistic License 2.0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Beerware 42 | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes[32] |
Berkeley Database License | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Original BSD license | Yes | No | No[33] | No | Yes | Yes |
Modified BSD license | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Boost Software License | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
CeCILL | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Common Development and Distribution License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Common Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Cryptix General License | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Eclipse Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Educational Community License | Yes[34] | Yes | No | No | Yes | |
Eiffel Forum License 2 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
GNU Affero General Public License | Yes | Yes[8][35] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
GNU General Public License v2 | Yes | Yes[note 2][36] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
GNU General Public License v3 | Yes | Yes[note 3][36] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
GNU Lesser General Public License | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
IBM Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No[26] | Yes | Yes |
Intel Open Source License | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
ISC license | Yes[37] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
LaTeX Project Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No[26] | Yes | Yes |
Microsoft Public License | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Microsoft Reciprocal License | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
MIT license / X11 license | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Mozilla Public License 1.1 | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Mozilla Public License 2.0 | Yes | Yes[note 4][38] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Netscape Public License | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes |
Open Software License | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
OpenSSL license | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
PHP License | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Partial |
Python Software Foundation License 2.0.1; 2.1.1 and newer | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Q Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Reciprocal Public License 1.5 | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
Sun Industry Standards Source License | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Sun Public License | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Sybase Open Watcom Public License | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
W3C Software Notice and License | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) | Yes[note 5] | Yes | No[39] | Yes | Yes | Yes |
XFree86 1.1 License | Yes | Yes[40] | No | No | No | No |
zlib/libpng license | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Zope Public License 1.0 | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes |
Zope Public License 2.0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 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.
- ↑ If without "or later" clause not with GPLv3.
- ↑ 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
- Free software
- Free software license
- List of software licenses
- Open source software
References
- ↑ Open source licenses - Licenses by Name on opensource.org
- ↑ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Retrieved August 8, 2011.
- ↑ "Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement", Free Software Foundation, Inc
- ↑ Avoiding Ruinous Compromises by FSF
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 "the section 4 of the apache license version 2".
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 "BSD license".
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 "the eclipse public license version 1".
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 : section 13 of the GNU AGPLv3 license
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 : GNU licenses copyleft
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 "the GNU Affero General Public License version 3".
- ↑ : If library is under GPLv3
- ↑ : Linking with the GNU GPLv3
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 "the GNU General Public License version 3".
- ↑ : the section 4 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 "the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3".
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 "MIT License".
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 "MPL version 2".
- ↑ 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. "The Approved Licenses". License Information. Open Source Initiative.
- ↑ Copyfree Initiative. "Copyfree Licenses". Copyfree Initiative.
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 "Rejected Licenses". CopyFree Initiative. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ "Licensing/Beerware". Fedora Project. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ↑ "3-clause BSD License at OSI".
- ↑ Free Software Foundation. "Educational Community License 2.0". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
- ↑ : "We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software."
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 "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.
- ↑ Free Software Foundation. "A Quick Guide to GPLv3". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
- ↑ Mozilla Foundation. "MPL 2.0 FAQ". Licenses. Mozilla Foundation.
- ↑ "OSI Board Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, March 4, 2009".
- ↑ Free Software Foundation. "XFree86 1.1 License". Licenses. Free Software Foundation.