Crandi

Comparison Of Free And Open Source Software Licenses Wikipedia

Leo Migdal
-
comparison of free and open source software licenses wikipedia

This comparison only covers software licenses which have a linked Wikipedia article for details and which are approved by at least one of the following expert groups: the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source... For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free-content licences. FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software". There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free.[2] FSF's free software and OSI's open-source... There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition.

The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution, e.g. the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement, which requires the code to be "original" work.[3][4] The OSI does not endorse FSF license analysis (interpretation) as per their disclaimer.[5] The FSF's Free Software Definition focuses on the user's unrestricted rights to use a program, to study and modify it, to copy it, and to redistribute it for any purpose, which are considered by... For a simpler comparison across the most common licenses see free-software license comparison. The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license, based on seven subjects or categories. Recent tools like the European Commissions' Joinup Licensing Assistant,[10] makes possible the licenses selection and comparison based on more than 40 subjects or categories, with access to their SPDX identifier and full text.

The table below lists the permissions and limitations regarding the following subjects: Open-source licenses are software licenses that allow content to be used, modified, and shared. They facilitate free and open-source software (FOSS) development. Intellectual property (IP) laws restrict the modification and sharing of creative works. Free and open-source licenses use these existing legal structures for an inverse purpose. They grant the recipient the rights to use the software, examine the source code, modify it, and distribute the modifications.

These criteria are outlined in the Open Source Definition. After 1980, the United States began to treat software as a literary work covered by copyright law. Richard Stallman founded the free software movement in response to the rise of proprietary software. The term "open source" was used by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), founded by free-software developers Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond. "Open source" emphasizes the strengths of the open development model rather than software freedoms.

While the goals behind the terms are different, open-source licenses and free-software licenses describe the same type of licenses.[1] The two main categories of open-source licenses are permissive and copyleft. Both grant permission to change and distribute software. Typically, they require attribution and disclaim liability. Permissive licenses come from academia. Copyleft licenses come from the free software movement.

Copyleft licenses require derivative works to be distributed with the source code and under a similar license. Since the mid-2000s, courts in multiple countries have upheld the terms of both types of license. Software developers have filed cases as copyright infringement and as breaches of contract. Intellectual property (IP) is a legal category that treats creative output as property, comparable to private property.[2] Legal systems grant the owner of an IP the right to restrict access in many ways.[3] Owners... Most countries, including the United States (US), have created copyright laws in line with the Berne Convention with slight variations.[5] These laws assign a copyright whenever a work is released in any fixed format.[6]... Modified versions of the original work are derivative works.[8] When a creator modifies an existing work, they hold the copyright to their modifications.[9] Unless the original work was in the public domain, a derivative...

This is an accepted version of this page Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software available under a license that gives users the right to use, share, modify, and distribute the software – modified or not – to everyone and provides the... FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term encompassing free software and open-source software.[a][1] The rights guaranteed by FOSS originate from the "Four Essential Freedoms" of The Free Software Definition and the criteria of The Open... FOSS is the opposite of proprietary software, which is licensed restrictively or has undisclosed source code.[4] The historical precursor to FOSS was the hobbyist and academic public domain software ecosystem of the 1960s to 1980s. Free and open-source operating systems such as Linux distributions and descendants of BSD are widely used, powering millions of servers, desktops, smartphones, and other devices.[9][10] Free-software licenses and open-source licenses have been adopted by...

Reasons for using FOSS include decreased software costs, increased security against malware, stability, privacy, opportunities for educational usage, and giving users more control over their own hardware. The free software movement and the open-source software movement are online social movements behind widespread production, adoption and promotion of FOSS, with the former preferring to use the equivalent term free/libre and open-source software. FOSS is supported by a loosely associated movement of multiple organizations, foundations, communities and individuals who share basic philosophical perspectives and collaborate practically, but may diverge in detail questions. "Free and open-source software" (FOSS) is an umbrella term for software that is considered free software and open-source software.[1] The precise definition of the terms "free software" and "open-source software" applies them to any... A free-software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are usually prohibited by copyright law, but the rights-holder (usually the author) of a piece of software can remove these restrictions by accompanying the software with a software license which grants the...

Software using such a license is free software (or free and open-source software) as conferred by the copyright holder. Free-software licenses are applied to software in source code and also binary object-code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.[2] Free-software licenses provide risk mitigation against different legal threats or behaviors that are seen as potentially harmful by developers: In the early times of software, sharing of software and source code was common in certain communities, for instance academic institutions. Before the US Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) decided in 1974 that "computer programs, to the extent that they embody an author's original creation, are proper subject matter of copyright",[4][5]... Therefore, software had no licenses attached and was shared as public-domain software.

The CONTU decision plus court decisions such as Apple v. Franklin in 1983 for object code, clarified that the Copyright Act gave computer programs the copyright status of literary works and started the licensing of software. Free-software licenses before the late 1980s were generally informal notices written by the developers themselves. These early licenses were of the "permissive" kind. In the mid-1980s, the GNU project produced copyleft free-software licenses for each of its software packages. An early such license (the "GNU Emacs Copying Permission Notice") was used for GNU Emacs in 1985,[6] which was revised into the "GNU Emacs General Public License" in late 1985, and clarified in March...

In 1989, version 1 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) was published. Version 2 of the GPL, released in 1991, went on to become the most widely used free-software license.[12][13][14] Free/open-source software – the source availability model used by free and open-source software (FOSS) – and closed source are two approaches to the distribution of software. Under the closed-source model source code is not released to the public. Closed-source software is maintained by a team who produces their product in a compiled-executable state, which is what the market is allowed access to. Microsoft, the owner and developer of Windows and Microsoft Office, along with other major software companies, have long been proponents of this business model, although in August 2010, Microsoft interoperability general manager Jean Paoli...

The FOSS model allows for able users to view and modify a product's source code, but most of such code is not in the public domain. Common advantages cited by proponents for having such a structure are expressed in terms of trust, acceptance, teamwork and quality.[2] A non-free license is used to limit what free software movement advocates consider to be the essential freedoms. A license, whether providing open-source code or not, that does not stipulate the "four software freedoms",[3] are not considered "free" by the free software movement. A closed source license is one that limits only the availability of the source code. By contrast a copyleft license claims to protect the "four software freedoms" by explicitly granting them and then explicitly prohibiting anyone to redistribute the package or reuse the code in it to make derivative...

Some licenses grant the four software freedoms but allow redistributors to remove them if they wish. Such licenses are sometimes called permissive software licenses.[4] An example of such a license is the FreeBSD License which allows derivative software to be distributed as non-free or closed source, as long as they... A misconception that is often made by both proponents and detractors of FOSS is that it cannot be capitalized.[5] FOSS can and has been commercialized by companies such as Red Hat, Canonical, Mozilla, Google,... This category has the following 2 subcategories, out of 2 total. The following 85 pages are in this category, out of 85 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.

Free Software and Open Source Software are two philosophies in software engineering. Free Software and Open Source Software both have common goals of collaboration and innovation but they are distinct in terms of why they are doing it and prioritize different aspects of software development and... “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software. The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom.

Open Source Software is something that you can modify as per your needs, and share with others without any licensing violation burden. When we say Open Source, the source code of the software is available publicly with Open Source licenses like GNU (GPL) which allows you to edit the source code and distribute it. Read these licenses and you will realize that these licenses are created to help us. Free software and open-source software are two distinct concepts, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Free software is developed with the goal of promoting freedom and giving users complete control over the software they use. Open-source software is developed with the goal of producing high-quality software that can be used by anyone, regardless of their technical ability.

Ultimately, the choice between free software and open-source software depends on the needs of the user and the specific problem they are trying to solve. Abstract: This post reviews the fundamentals and evolution of open source licenses from the commonly used permissive to strong copyleft frameworks. We cover the history, core concepts, applications, challenges, and future trends of licensing in software development. By comparing licenses such as MIT, GNU GPL, Apache 2.0, BSD, Mozilla Public License, and Eclipse Public License, this guide offers actionable insights for developers, organizations, and innovators. Explore practical use cases, a detailed comparison table, and additional resources—including deep dives on regulatory compliance and emerging blockchain solutions—to help you choose the best license for your project. Open source licenses determine the legal use, modification, and distribution conditions of software.

In today’s tech landscape, choosing the best open source license is a strategic decision that not only shapes a project's community and collaboration but also safeguards intellectual property. This post explores the spectrum of licensing options available—from highly permissive frameworks that allow proprietary use to strong copyleft models that promote software freedom. With clear explanations in accessible language, we aim to empower developers and organizations to make informed decisions aligned with their project goals. The open source movement emerged as a response to the restrictive nature of proprietary software. Early developers saw the benefit of sharing code openly to fuel innovation. Today, a wide range of licenses are approved by organizations like the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to ensure that software remains collaborative and accessible.

People Also Search

This Comparison Only Covers Software Licenses Which Have A Linked

This comparison only covers software licenses which have a linked Wikipedia article for details and which are approved by at least one of the following expert groups: the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source... For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free-content licences. FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software". There is no one universally agreed-up...

The Open Source Definition Allows For Further Restrictions Like Price,

The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution, e.g. the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement, which requires the code to be "original" work.[3][4] The OSI does not endorse FSF license analysis (interpretation) as per their disclaimer.[5] The FSF's Free Software Definition focuses on the user's unrestricted rights to use...

The Table Below Lists The Permissions And Limitations Regarding The

The table below lists the permissions and limitations regarding the following subjects: Open-source licenses are software licenses that allow content to be used, modified, and shared. They facilitate free and open-source software (FOSS) development. Intellectual property (IP) laws restrict the modification and sharing of creative works. Free and open-source licenses use these existing legal struct...

These Criteria Are Outlined In The Open Source Definition. After

These criteria are outlined in the Open Source Definition. After 1980, the United States began to treat software as a literary work covered by copyright law. Richard Stallman founded the free software movement in response to the rise of proprietary software. The term "open source" was used by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), founded by free-software developers Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond. "O...

While The Goals Behind The Terms Are Different, Open-source Licenses

While the goals behind the terms are different, open-source licenses and free-software licenses describe the same type of licenses.[1] The two main categories of open-source licenses are permissive and copyleft. Both grant permission to change and distribute software. Typically, they require attribution and disclaim liability. Permissive licenses come from academia. Copyleft licenses come from the...