CC0 is a public domain dedication from Creative Commons. As it turnsout, the DSL (see below) also requires that you determine what the“source code” is, using approximately the same definitionthat the GPL uses. We recommend you donot use this license for documentation. Thus, we recommend you donot use this license for documentation. This license does not qualify as free, because there arerestrictions on charging money for copies. For clarity, it is better not to usethe abbreviation “OPL” for either license.
Upgrading Polr
If you want the shortest unproblematical license, we thinkit is wiser to use the FreeBSD License, as it issimilarly permissive and brief. Accordingly, there isalso no placeholder for copyright notice in the template of this licensecirculating in the internet. Itconsists of the GNULesser GPL 2.0 or any later version, plus an additional permissionallowing binary distributions that use the library to be licensedunder terms of the distributor's choice (including proprietary). Thus, all of WebM's license isfree and GPL-compatible. It is compatible with the GPL, by an explicit conversionclause.
Software Licenses
If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, werecommend you use CC0. Awork released under CC0 is dedicated to the public domain to thefullest extent permitted by law. The GNU GPL can be used for general data which isnot software, as long as one can determine what the definition of“source code” refers to in the particular case. These two licenses are frequentlyconfused, as the Open Content License is often referred to as the“OPL”. Thus, while manuals published under this license do qualify as freedocumentation if neither license option was used, it is better to use theGNU Free Documentation License and avoid the risk of leading someone elseastray. This is a free documentation license that is incompatible with betory casino bonus theGNU FDL.
Versioning
MPL version 2.0 has a number of improvements, includingGPL-compatibility by default. It's also incompatiblewith the GNU GPL, and we urge you not to use the Ms-RL for thisreason. It's based on the Microsoft Public License, and has an additional clauseto make the copyleft just a little bit stronger. This license is an incomplete statement of the distribution termsfor LaTeX. The GPL is not amember of that class, so the Jabber license does not permit relicensingunder the GPL.
- This was important because in order to combine two codes into a larger work, both programs must permit that combination.
- Itpermits commercial distribution, as any free license must.
- Despite its name, this is not a free software license because itdoes not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simplypackaging software licensed under it with anything for which a chargeis made.
- This is an unreasonable condition to place onusers’ rights, so the license is nonfree.
- GNU.org has a compatibility chart and additional commentary for the different versions of GPL.
GNU GPLv3 compatibility
It is essentially identical to the X11License, with an optional alternative way of providing licensenotices. If you want to release your work to the public domain, we encourageyou to use formal tools to do so. It is compatiblewith the GNU GPLbecause the GNU GPL is one of the alternatives.
Please do not confusethis with the Sun Community SourceLicense, which is not a free software license. You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for theprogram. Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take aGPL-covered program and QPL-covered program and link them together, nomatter how.
It is also ambiguous, since the same people also callthe Expat license “the MIT License,”failing to distinguish them. Itis a weak copyleft, even weaker than the LGPL, so we recommendit only in specialcircumstances. Google also provides aseparate patent license (confusingly called an “Additional IPRights Grant”) for patents that Google owns or controls that arenecessarily infringed by their implementation of WebM.
- It is compatible with the GPL, by an explicit conversionclause.
- If a source file contains no statement about what itslicense is, then moving it into another context eliminates all traceof that point.
- In somecountries, users that download code with no license may infringecopyright merely by compiling it or running it.
- However, many other countries have a more rigid approach tocopyright licenses.
- This is a license that Unicode, Inc. has applied to the UnicodeCharacter Database—various data files that developers can use tohelp implement the Unicode standard in their own programs.
- Are covered by the Unicode Terms of Use, a different, nonfreelicense that appears on the same page but covers different files.
(#which-cc)Creative Commons publishes many licenses which arevery different. This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art andentertainment works, and educational works. Because of this lack of patent grant, we encourage you to be carefulabout using software under this license; you should first considerwhether the licensor might want to sue you for patent infringement.
Ifyou want to use a lax permissive license for your project, please usethe Expat license for a small program and theApache 2.0 license for a substantial program. Some of the files containalternative license terms which are nonfree, or no licensinginformation at all, so including a copy of the License Agreementwill help avoid confusion when others want to distribute yoursoftware. This is a license that Unicode, Inc. has applied to the UnicodeCharacter Database—various data files that developers can use tohelp implement the Unicode standard in their own programs.