Non-gpl compatible licenses

This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and another clause removed. Our comments about the Modified BSD license apply to this license too. This is a free software license, and compatible with GPLv3. It has some attribution requirements which make it incompatible with GPLv2. This is a lax, permissive, and weak free software license that is compatible with the GPL.

It is similar to the license of Python 1. This is a free software license, and GPL-compatible. The authors have assured us that developers who document changes as required by the GPL will also comply with the similar requirement in this license.

In the United States, these licenses are supposed to be interpreted based on what the author seems to intend. So they probably mean what they appear to mean.

However, an unlucky choice of wording could give it a different meaning. However, many other countries have a more rigid approach to copyright licenses. There is no telling what courts in those countries might decide an informal statement means.

Courts might even decide that it is not a license at all. If you want your code to be free, don't invite gratuitous trouble for your users. Please choose and apply an established free software license. We offer recommendations that we suggest you follow.

ISC has told us they do not share the University of Washington's interpretation, and we have every reason to believe them. However, to help make sure this language cannot cause any trouble in the future, we encourage developers to choose a different license for their own works. However, if you want a lax, weak license, we recommend using the Apache 2.

This is a free software license. Section 3. When you receive work under MPL 2. When you do, section 3. People who receive that combination from you will have the option to use any files that were originally covered by the MPL under that license's terms, or distribute the Larger Work in whole or in part under the GNU licenses' terms with no further restrictions.

It's important to understand that the condition to distribute files under the MPL's terms only applies to the party that first creates and distributes the Larger Work.

That said, when you make contributions to an existing project, we usually recommend that you keep your changes under the same license , even when you're not required to do so. If you receive a work under a GNU license where some files are also under the MPL, you should only remove the MPL from those files when there's a strong reason to justify it. Parties who release original work under MPL 2.

Software under previous versions of the MPL can be upgraded to version 2. This license is based on the terms of the Expat and modified BSD licenses.

This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1. It qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real copyleft. We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming. Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license.

If you want to release your work to the public domain, we encourage you to use formal tools to do so. We ask people who make small contributions to GNU to sign a disclaimer form; that's one solution. If you're working on a project that doesn't have formal contribution policies like that, CC0 is a good tool that anyone can use. It formally dedicates your work to the public domain, and provides a fallback license for cases where that is not legally possible.

Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python 1. Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are under other licenses see above and below. It is essentially identical to the X11 License , with an optional alternative way of providing license notices. However, they all included clauses that allow you to upgrade to new versions of the license, if you choose to do so.

As a result, if a piece of software was released under any version of the SGI Free License B, you can use it under the terms of this free version. This is a license that Unicode, Inc. It is a lax permissive license, compatible with all versions of the GPL. If you want to use files covered by this License Agreement in your own software, that shouldn't be any problem, but we recommend that you also include a full copy of its text. Some of the files contain alternative license terms which are nonfree, or no licensing information at all, so including a copy of the License Agreement will help avoid confusion when others want to distribute your software.

Of course, you'll also need to follow the conditions in this License Agreement for distributing the files, but those are very straightforward. Please take care to ensure that the files you are using are covered by this License Agreement.

Other files published by Unicode, Inc. A short explanation at the top of this License Agreement details which files it covers. Please do not use this License Agreement for your own software. If you want to use a lax permissive license for your project, please use the Expat license for a small program and the Apache 2. These are far more common, and widely recognized in the free software community.

The license does provide the ability to license patents along with the software work, however, we still recommend the Apache 2. The Unlicense is a public domain dedication. A work released under the Unlicense is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest extent permitted by law, and also comes with an additional lax license that helps cover any cases where the dedication is inadequate. If you want to release your work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0.

CC0 also provides a public domain dedication with a fallback license, and is more thorough and mature than the Unlicense. This is a free software license, partially copyleft but not really. It is compatible with the GPL, by an explicit conversion clause. GPL-covered software can be distributed in compliance with this license's terms: it allows distributors to exercise all of the rights granted by the GPL, while fulfilling all its conditions. We do not recommend this license.

If you want a lax permissive license for a small program, we recommend the X11 license. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on using a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2.

It is a weak copyleft, even weaker than the LGPL, so we recommend it only in special circumstances. Older versions of XFree86 used the same license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1. This is a fine license for a small program. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2.

This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL. Please note that this license is incompatible with version 2 of the GPL, because of its requirements that apply to all documentation in the distribution that contain acknowledgements. There are currently several variants of XFree86, and only some of them use this license. Some continue to use the X11 license. The new section, 2 d , covers the distribution of application programs through web services or computer networks.

Recent versions contain contract clauses similar to the Open Software License , and should be avoided for the same reasons. This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license. It has a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL, such as strong prohibitions on the use of Apache-related names.

This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with an advertising clause. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this license.

More explanation. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. If you want to use a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license , the X11 license or the Expat license.

Even better, for a substantial program, use the Apache 2. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license. The credit requirements in section 5.

We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. It is based on the Mozilla Public License version 1, and is incompatible with the GPL for the same reasons: it has several requirements for modified versions that do not exist in the GPL. It also requires you to publish the source of the program if you allow others to use it.

Recent versions of Condor from 6. Only older versions of Condor use this license. The Condor Public License is a free software license.

If it made compliance an actual condition of the license, it would not be a free software license. The only change is that the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patent infringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'd program. If an initial contributor releases a specific piece of code and designates GNU GPL version 2 or later as a secondary license, that provides explicit compatibility with those GPL versions for that code.

By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL's, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License and the Common Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. If you also attach a "no commerical use" rider, you are not re-using the same license. Longer answer: Yes, but. If you have the right to dictate the terms of license for your entire project -- i.

The "no commercial source" library would maintain with itself and attach to your program, while the "copyleft" of the GPL would attach to all of your original code and anyone else's derivations thereof.

And the license for your "no-commerical use" library might not include "re-license your own project" in their description of "use. The interplay of licenses is a complicated legal issue.

Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Ask Question. Asked 8 years, 2 months ago.

Active 8 years, 2 months ago. Viewed 6k times. Improve this question. There is no clear declaration of what constitutes as "commercial use" which is why you should generally prevent to make use of such unclear terms. You are allowed to add terms to the L GPL, but note that the license says that a user may remove them if he wishes. See the sentence in the GPL: "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term So, your restriction about financial people, war projects, is technically allowed, however, it's allowed for them to simply remove that restriction and then redistribute the less-restrictive version again to themselves.

Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. For example, the Free Software Definition starts with The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. The Open Source Definition similarly requires: 5.

No discrimination against persons or groups. The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. No discrimination against fields of endeavor. The reason for these constraints is both practical and value-oriented.

Improve this answer. Thank you for the reply. I only disagree with privacy. Real privacy is a myth. I'm quite sure that there are thousands of backdoors in the program we uses, and in Android too : — Marco Sulla. Some background.

Copyright provides a bundle of exclusive rights to the copyright holder. Copyleft licenses leverage these rights for imposing license conditions that provide Software Freedom.

This is useful when end users operate the software themselves, but is meaningless for SaaS. CAL is the first to use the right to public performance.

This condition is generally impossible to fulfill. An impossible condition amounts to a usage restriction. The license terms you are describing are much closer to the AGPL. Show 6 more comments. Mat K. Witts Mat K. Asked 10 years, 3 months ago. Active 10 years, 3 months ago.

Viewed 16k times. Improve this question. Hugo 3, 2 2 gold badges 21 21 silver badges 39 39 bronze badges. Valmond Valmond 1 1 gold badge 4 4 silver badges 7 7 bronze badges.

Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? Improve this answer. Dave Sherohman Dave Sherohman 1, 10 10 silver badges 9 9 bronze badges. It should be noted that the FSF's position on linking is the minority position. And, IMO, it makes no sense whatsoever. An automated process cannot create a new work. This makes their opinion far more relevant.

What does it mean by "uses only simple fork and exec to invoke" - can someone clarify this? That would seem to make the GPL irrelevant and impossible to enforce. What if I write my own library and link to it along with a GPLed library. Does my separate standalone library then become GPLed too?

What if I link to someone else's library while using GPLed code? Does their library become GPLed? If you answer no to any of these questions, it opens a massive loophole to easily bypass the GPL.

If you answer yes, then you're violating copyright law. Cerin - The GPL only really applies to code which you distribute. So, while you can write a program which links to both GPLed and non-GPL-compatible licenses, you cannot then distribute that program to third parties, as it would run GPLed and non-GPL-compatible code in the same process. Show 2 more comments.