There are lots of software license types, and they all have different intentions.
GPL license is intended to force you to share any modifications
LGPL license allows commercial software to use a library, but if you upgrade the library itself, then you must share the fixes.
Mozilla/Berkeley style licenses only ask that you give credit for using the software but you do not have to share your changes.
Public domain means that you can do absolutely anything with it in the USA. In Europe, the closest thing to that is "Creative Commons"
Ordinary copyright requires that you ask the author for any significant use of the code beyond "fair use".
So if you want to use software written by someone else, you should examine the digital rights for that software and see if it is the sort of thing that you are looking for.
All of these license types are valuable. All of them create useful and interesting projects. I have worked on projects in all of these categories. So pick and choose tools that fit your needs and the designs of your project.
IMO-YMMV
Software license types and their intentions
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 12542
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Software license types and their intentions
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:19 pm
- Full name: Rasmus Althoff
Re: Software license types and their intentions
There's another right the user has: he must be able to modify the LGPL'ed library and still have the proprietary software run (provided, of course, that he didn't alter the lib in an incompatible way). That's why static linkage is not allowed.Dann Corbit wrote:LGPL license allows commercial software to use a library, but if you upgrade the library itself, then you must share the fixes.
-
- Posts: 12542
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Software license types and their intentions
That sounds more like a duty than a rightRas wrote:There's another right the user has: he must be able to modify the LGPL'ed library and still have the proprietary software run (provided, of course, that he didn't alter the lib in an incompatible way). That's why static linkage is not allowed.Dann Corbit wrote:LGPL license allows commercial software to use a library, but if you upgrade the library itself, then you must share the fixes.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:58 am
- Location: Australia
- Full name: Nguyen Hong Pham
Re: Software license types and their intentions
Recently I share some my codes under MIT license. It closes to Public domain but keep credit to the author.
-
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:23 am
- Location: http://www.arasanchess.org
Re: Software license types and their intentions
The Apache license is also popular. Similar in intent to MIT/BSD, but addresses some topics such as patents that those other licenses do not.
--Jon
--Jon
-
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:19 pm
- Full name: Rasmus Althoff
Re: Software license types and their intentions
The user must be able to do that - that doesn't mean that he is obliged.Dann Corbit wrote:That sounds more like a duty than a right
For the authors who use a GPL'ed library, it is a duty to make that possible, of course, and that is the intent of the GNU licences.
-
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 pm
- Location: Czech Republic
- Full name: Martin Sedlak
Re: Software license types and their intentions
I like the boost license: http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
It's short and explicitly states that
This means that nobody who uses your sofware (library) needs to attach the license when distributing binaries of his program.
Giving credit isn't explicitly mentioned either so it's optional.
So you still have a license (public domain isn't acknowledged in all countries), source distributions/modificiations are required to contain the license so it still "protects" your code this way.
So my #1 choice for future (if any) open source projects of mine.
It's short and explicitly states that
Code: Select all
The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including
the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer,
must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative
works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by
a source language processor.
Giving credit isn't explicitly mentioned either so it's optional.
So you still have a license (public domain isn't acknowledged in all countries), source distributions/modificiations are required to contain the license so it still "protects" your code this way.
So my #1 choice for future (if any) open source projects of mine.
-
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:23 am
- Location: http://www.arasanchess.org
Re: Software license types and their intentions
Boost has that clause because it is a library and it is intended to be bundled with other code.
--Jon
--Jon
-
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 pm
- Location: Czech Republic
- Full name: Martin Sedlak
Re: Software license types and their intentions
Right, and I love that clause as it gives a lot of freedom to potential users.jdart wrote:Boost has that clause because it is a library and it is intended to be bundled with other code.
--Jon
And most (if not all) of the open source that people want to integrate are libraries.