Comparison of free software licenses
This is a comparison of published free software licenses.
The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license.
Note that a "yes" in either of the last two columns (Link with code using a different license and Release changes under a different license) is not an absolute answer, there may still be restrictions in the license related to this action. You should review the specific license terms and refer to the reference table for more details regarding a "yes" in these columns.
License Author Latest version Publication date Link with code using a different license Release changes under a different license Academic Free License Lawrence E. Rosen 3 2002 Yes Yes Affero GPL Free Software Foundation 3 2007 No No Apache License Apache Software Foundation 2.0 2004 Yes Yes Apple Public Source License Apple Computer 2.0 August 6, 2003 Yes No Artistic License Larry Wall 2.0 2000 Yes With restrictions Berkeley Database License Oracle Corporation ? February 7, 2008 No No BSD license Regents of the University of California ? ? Yes Yes Boost Software License ? 1.0 August 17, 2003 Yes Yes Common Development and Distribution License Sun Microsystems 1.0 December 1, 2004 Yes Yes Code Project Open License The Code Project 1.0 2007 Yes No Common Public License IBM 1.0 May 2001 Yes No Cryptix General License Cryptix Foundation ? 1995 Yes Yes Eclipse Public License Eclipse Foundation 1.0 February 2004 Yes No Educational Community License ? 1.0 ? Yes Yes Eiffel Forum License NICE 2 2002 Yes Yes EUPL European Commission 1.1 January 2009 Yes With an explicit compatibility list Fair Licence ? N/A 2004 Yes Yes GNU General Public License Free Software Foundation 3.0 June 2007 No No GNU Lesser General Public License Free Software Foundation 3.0 June 2007 Yes No Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement Hacktivismo/Cult of the Dead Cow ? November 26, 2002 ? ? IBM Public License IBM 1.0 August 1999 Yes Yes Intel Open Source License Intel Corporation ? ? Yes Yes ISC license Internet Systems Consortium ? June 2003 Yes Yes LaTeX Project Public License LaTeX project 1.3c ? Yes Yes MIT license / X11 license MIT N/A1 1988 Yes Yes Mozilla Public License Mozilla Foundation 1.1 ? Yes Limited Netscape Public License Netscape 1.1 ? ? ? OPaC Free Public License OPaC bright ideas ? 1998 No No Open Software License Lawrence Rosen 3.0 2005 Yes No OpenSSL license OpenSSL Project ? ? ? ? PHP License PHP Group 3.01 ? Yes Yes Python Software Foundation License Python Software Foundation 2 ? Yes Yes Q Public License Trolltech ? ? No No Sun Industry Standards Source License Sun Microsystems ? ? Yes No Sun Public License Sun Microsystems ? ? Yes No Sybase Open Watcom Public License ? ? ? Yes No W3C Software Notice and License ? ? ? Yes Yes XCore Open Source License XMOS ? February 2011 Yes Yes XFree86 1.1 License ? ? ? Yes Yes zlib/libpng license ? ? ? Yes Yes Zope Public License ? ? ? Yes Yes License Author Latest version Publication date Link with code from a different license Release changes under a different license
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.
License and specific version FSF approval Compatible with GPL OSI approval Debian approval Fedora Project approval Academic Free License Yes No Yes ? Yes Affero GPL version 3 Yes Yes2 Yes Yes ? Apache License version 1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Apache License version 1.1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Apache License version 2 Yes Yes2 Yes Yes Yes Apple Public Source License version 1.x No No ? No No Apple Public Source License version 2.0 Yes No Yes No Yes Artistic License 1.0 No No Yes Yes No Clarified Artistic License (draft 2.0) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Artistic License 2.0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Berkeley Database License Yes Yes Yes ? ? original BSD license Yes No No No Yes modified BSD license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Boost Software License Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Common Development and Distribution License Yes No Yes Yes Yes Common Public License Yes No Yes ? Yes Creative Commons licenses (Tags: by & sa) Yes No ? ≥ v3.0 only Yes Creative Commons licenses (Tags: nc & nd) No No ? No by-nd only Cryptix General License Yes Yes No ? Yes Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) Yes4 Yes No ? Yes Eclipse Public License Yes No Yes ? Yes Educational Community License Yes Yes2 Yes ? Yes Eiffel Forum License version 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fair Licence ? Yes Yes ? ? GNU General Public License Yes Yes3 Yes3 Yes Yes GNU Lesser General Public License Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement No No No ? No IBM Public License Yes No Yes ? Yes Intel Open Source License Yes Yes Yes ? No ISC license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes LaTeX Project Public License Yes No Yes Yes Yes Microsoft Public License Yes No Yes ? Yes Microsoft Reciprocal License Yes No Yes ? Yes MIT license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mozilla Public License Yes No Yes Yes Yes Netscape Public License Yes No No ? Yes Open Software License Yes No Yes No Yes OpenSSL license Yes No No Yes Yes PHP License Yes No Yes Yes v3.0/3.01 only, others are unknown POV-Ray-License No No No No ? Python Software Foundation License 2.0.1; 2.1.1 and newer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Q Public License Yes No Yes ? Yes Sun Industry Standards Source License Yes No Yes ? Yes Sun Public License Yes No Yes ? Yes Sybase Open Watcom Public License ? ? Yes ? No W3C Software Notice and License Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes XFree86 1.1 License Yes Yes2 No ? ? zlib/libpng license Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Zope Public License version 1.0 Yes No ? ? Yes Zope Public License version 2.0 Yes Yes Yes ? Yes License and specific version FSF approval Compatible with GPL OSI approval Debian approval Fedora Project approval
- ^1 Was never revised.
- ^2 Compatible to version 3 of the GPL but not compatible to version 2.
- ^3 The original version of the Artistic License is defined as non-free because it is overly vague, not because the substance of the license. The FSF encourages projects to use the Clarified Artistic License instead.
- ^4 Listed as WTFPL.
- ^ a b Rusin, Zack. "Open Source Licenses Comparison". http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html. Retrieved 2006-10-16.
- ^ a b Open Source Initiative. "The Approved Licenses". License Information. Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/.
- ^ Free Software Foundation. "Various Licenses and Comments about Them". Licenses. Free Software Foundation. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.
- ^ Debian. "Debian - License information". Licenses. Debian. http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/.
- ^ "The DFSG and Software Licenses". Debian wiki. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses.
- ^ Fedora. "Licensing - FedoraProject". Licenses. Fedora Project. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing.
- ^ "BSDLicense". http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php.
- ^ a b "DFSGLicenses". http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses.
- ^ "OSI Board Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, March 4, 2009". http://www.opensource.org/minutes20090304.
- ^ Free Software Foundation. "A Quick Guide to GPLv3". Licenses. Free Software Foundation. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#new-compatible-licenses.
This free software-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.