Licenses are really important part of a project. It’s one of those protector that’ll make sure no creation of one is used by another for self-profi...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
There is no such thing as the OpenSourceFoundation, there is the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative, these are separate non-profit organisations, the term "Free Software" is coined and defined by the FSF (see gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html), while the term "Open-Source" is defined by the OSI (see opensource.org/osd).
Although both of these terms, in most cases, refer to more or less the same thing, there are some differences that you can find in this article:
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-mis...
The opposite term for both of these is "Proprietary Software" or "Non-Free Software".
Thanks for the info. I thought OpenSourceFoundation & OpenSourceInitiative refers to same but now looks like not
No one will mention the WTFPL? 🤣
Anyway thank you for the article. The BSD-4 was exactly what I was looking for.
Some resource and article by blueoakcouncil.org might help.
Also check their premissive and copyleft license list categorization.
Great resource. TY for sharing
Good and timely writing! BSD4 seems like a vey nice choice!
Question: Can I use a tool/framework released under GNU GPL license to build a non commercial application in my organisation?
The GPL doesn't forbid any use. The people who wrote the GPL license (Stallman and the FSF) have always been concerned about their ability to modify the software they are running, not preventing commercial use.
What the GPL requires is that if you distribute an application that contains GPL'd code (e.g. a library) in binary form (outside of your organization), then you ALSO must make the source code of the entire app available under the GPL license. Corollaries:
(Note: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice)
Yes, you can. But your commercial application have to be licensed under a GPL/GPL compatible license
Great article, thanks. It's hard to give an exhaustive list of all available OS licenses, but I'd like to add the Affero GPL License, recognized by the Open Source Initiative. I see it very much in recents among open-source projects. It add a particular clause of enforcing developers to publish their modifications. The idea behind it is to address the flaw you describe at the end of the article, which is basically take profit of the software, modify it internally without having the need to make these changes available to the public.
Again, warm thanks for this article. It sums up the subject very well 👏
A very helpful read. Thanks! Didn't know how nice BSD-4 was
I've always used this site for my projects.
choosealicense.com/
The Hippocratic License is worth a mention IMHO.
firstdonoharm.dev/
There is another license named Unlicense. A crazy name but it exists.
Great article. Appreciate your research & knowledge 👍.
This is a nice comparison. I've been using MIT because it's kinda default in Ruby ecosystem, but maybe I'd consider switching to another.
I also like Beerware license ;)
Beerware Awesome
Cool stuff, thanks for sharing
I use leftcopy.org just because I think large companies are the worst offenders at freeloading.
Question: When is says to use your full name, would I have to use my legal name, or could I use an alias, such as tankerguy1917, as my name, to help keep my identity a secret?
I don't know this for sure. But I guess one can do that
But I'd recommend licenses that do not mention the author's name such as GPL/Apache-2.0
I prefer 0BSD. It is the most simple, short, straightforward license.