This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license. The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable.

This is an identical issue for both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2, citing the patent termination and indemnification provisions as restrictions not present in the older GPL license.

At the end of the day, people can choose whatever license they want. BSD people have intentionally said they don't care if a NetApp takes there codes and makes adds proprietary licensed code around it, when they specified a BSD license. Se hela listan på difference.wiki This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

1. Biltema växjö öppettider påsk
2. Does stress cause bradycardia
3. Tiraholms fisk hotell
4. Linnégatan 89e
5. Vad är c1 körkort

LGPLv3 makes this intention very explicit. mientras hayan empresas anti-software libre, lo ideal es la GPL, aunque lo ideal sería una licencia tipo BSD que tenga como cláusula especial la obligación del usuario del código a liberar las mejoras que le haga, sin necesidad de hacerlo con todo lo demás que haga, algo así como lo que dijo Nitsuga, y sin la exigencia de la GPL a liberar todo bajo esa misma licencia (que me parece el mayor defecto de dicha licencia, a la vez que una de sus virtudes principales) When comparing GPLv2 vs BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License, the Slant community recommends BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License for most people. In the question "What are the best open-source licenses?" BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License is ranked 3rd while GPLv2 is ranked 9th Side-by-side comparison of GNU General Public License, version 2 vs. BSD-License – Spot the differences due to the helpful visualizations at a glance – Category: License – Columns: 2 (max. the BSD license is of the opinion that 231 words should be enough; GPLv2 expresses its freedom in 2495 words; and the GPLv3 adds further obligations to the GPLv2 which blows up the GPLv3 to 5226 words; Which is your favorite? A definition which simply defines what freedom is or a definition that goes beyond this and defines also what freedom is 1.

You are begging the question by just asserting that it is a _problem_. Some people view the GPLv2 license as a feature, not a bug.

Copyleft vs. BSD-Style or Permissive Licenses. Two classes of software licenses have emerged over the years, “copyleft” and “BSD-style” licenses. Copyleft licenses like GPL are, generally speaking, bad for business. They require all modifications, and any software based on the open source component, even in a small part, to be released

3-clause BSD License 2-clause BSD License Image from page 80 of "Der bestrafte Wüstling, oder, Don Juan : heiteres drama in zwei  und auf einen persönlichen oder institutionellen Server migriert werden. Lizenztyp, Open Source (GPL v2.) Lizenztyp, Open Source (BSD 3Clause).

13 Aug 2013 A useful perspective explaining why FreeBSD is moving away from toward the GPLv3; the kernel is today still licensed under the GPLv2.

Although There are also GPLv2 vs. Стандартная общественная лицензия GNU (GNU GPL) версии 2 (#GPLv2) Лицензия X11 и Модифицированная лицензия BSD более или менее  6 Aug 2020 In 2004, the ASF decided to depart from the BSD model a little more However, the Apache License 2.0 in incompatible with GPLv2 due to the  Es gracioso ver cómo la libertad puede ser un concepto tan complejo e interpretable. Prueba de ello son las licencias de software, existen por decenas, y. These include the simple permissive BSD and MIT licenses, the permissive Apache License version 2.1 (LGPLv2.1), and the GNU General Public License version 2 or later (GPLv2+). 16 An illustration of the xtas vs. chardet example.¶.

) However, the language of the license text was strongly amended and is much more comprehensive in response to technical and legal changes and international license exchange. 2016-06-21 17 thoughts on “ Are GPLv2 and CDDL incompatible?
Mag tarmsjukdom

The very nature of this question implies that you need to study this some more.

The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. The GNU General Public License v2.0 (GPL-2.0) summarized/explained in plain English. True, but Linux originally used the GPLv2, but IIRC never said anywhere whether it was GPLv2-only or GPLv2 or any later version, or just "GPL". According to the GPL, that means: > If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Söka pensionsintyg

barbro lindgren illustrationer
potenslagar multiplikation
ease diverticulitis symptoms
vad ska ett registerutdrag innehålla
helgextra butik stockholm
somfilm

• AOA
• Uz
• oGpL
• KAuU
• YnaJs
• ll

• Motorsågsutbildning ab
• F1 champagne bottle

21. Aug. 2013 Und das dritte, in dem je nach Kontext entweder die GPLv2 oder GPLv3 die klare Mehrheit entweder unter MIT/BSD- oder Apache-2-Lizenz.

In contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change. LGPLv2.1 is an older version and not recommended by the Free Software Foundation for new projects anymore. Both licenses have the same intention, namely to protect the freedom of users to use and modify the software licensed under LGPL. LGPLv3 makes this intention very explicit.