[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses license-list.html
|
From: |
Karl Berry |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses license-list.html |
|
Date: |
Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:36:50 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Karl Berry <karl> 07/02/15 23:36:50
Modified files:
licenses : license-list.html
Log message:
more or less alphabetize (but GNU first) within each section,
regularize formatting and punctuation
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/license-list.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.171&r2=1.172
Patches:
Index: license-list.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/license-list.html,v
retrieving revision 1.171
retrieving revision 1.172
diff -u -b -r1.171 -r1.172
--- license-list.html 13 Feb 2007 17:16:59 -0000 1.171
+++ license-list.html 15 Feb 2007 23:36:46 -0000 1.172
@@ -29,136 +29,119 @@
<p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>
<p></p>
-<hr />
<h2>Table of Contents</h2>
<ul>
- <li><a id="TOCIntroduction" href="#Introduction">Introduction</a></li>
- <li><a id="TOCSoftwareLicenses" name="#SoftwareLicenses">Software
- Licenses</a>
+<li><a id="TOCIntroduction" href="#Introduction">
+ Introduction</a></li>
+
+<li><a id="TOCSoftwareLicenses" name="#SoftwareLicenses">
+ Software Licenses</a>
<ul>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents BELOW TOO!
-->
- <li><a href="#GPLCompatibleLicenses"
- id="TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses">GPL-Compatible Free Software
Licenses</a></li>
- <li><a href="#GPLIncompatibleLicenses"
- id="TOCGPLIncompatibleLicenses">GPL-Incompatible, Free Software
Licenses</a></li>
- <li><a href="#NonFreeSoftwareLicense"
- id="TOCNonFreeSoftwareLicenses">Non-Free Software Licenses</a></li>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents BELOW TOO!
-->
+ <li><a href="#GPLCompatibleLicenses" id="TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses">
+ GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#GPLIncompatibleLicenses" id="TOCGPLIncompatibleLicenses">
+ GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#NonFreeSoftwareLicense" id="TOCNonFreeSoftwareLicenses">
+ Non-Free Software Licenses</a></li>
</ul></li>
- <li><a id="TOCDocumentationLicenses" name="#DocumentationLicenses">Licenses
For Documentation</a>
+
+<li><a id="TOCDocumentationLicenses" name="#DocumentationLicenses">
+ Licenses For Documentation</a>
<ul>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents BELOW TOO!
-->
- <li><a href="#FreeDocumentationLicenses"
- id="TOCFreeDocumentationLicenses">Free Documentation Licenses</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#FreeDocumentationLicenses" id="TOCFreeDocumentationLicenses">
+ Free Documentation Licenses</a></li>
<li><a href="#NonFreeDocumentationLicenses"
- id="TOCNonFreeDocumentationLicenses">Non-Free Documentation
-Licenses</a></li>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents BELOW TOO!
-->
+ id="TOCNonFreeDocumentationLicenses">
+ Non-Free Documentation Licenses</a></li>
</ul></li>
- <li><a id="TOCOtherLicenses" href="#OtherLicenses">Licenses For Works
Besides Software and Documentation</a></li>
- <li><a id="TOCFonts" href="#Fonts">Licenses for Fonts</a></li>
+
+<li><a id="TOCOtherLicenses" href="#OtherLicenses">
+ Licenses for Works Besides Software and Documentation</a></li>
+<li><a id="TOCFonts" href="#Fonts">Licenses for Fonts</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
-<h2><a id="Introduction" href="#TOCIntroduction">Introduction</a></h2>
-<p>
-We classify a license according to certain key questions:</p>
+
+<h2><a id="Introduction">Introduction</a></h2>
+
+<p>We classify a license according to certain key questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Whether it qualifies as a
- <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free software</a>
license.</li>
- <li>Whether it is a <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html";>copyleft</a> license.</li>
+ <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free
+ software</a> license.</li>
+ <li>Whether it is a <a
+ href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html";>copyleft</a>
+ license.</li>
<li>Whether it is compatible with the <a href="#GNUGPL">GNU GPL</a>.
(This means you can combine a module which was released
under that license with a GPL-covered module
to make one larger program.)</li>
<li>Whether it causes any particular practical problems.</li>
</ul>
-<p>
-If you want help choosing a license, evaluating a license, or have any other
-questions about licenses, you can email us at
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
-<p> If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the
+<p>If you want help choosing a license, evaluating a license, or have
+any other questions about licenses, you can email us at <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p>If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the
FSF by writing to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. The
proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work
-for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you
-find an existing Free Software license that meets your needs.
-</p>
+for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find
+an existing free software license that meets your needs. We try to list
+the most commonly encountered free software license on this page, but
+cannot list them all; we'll try our best to answer questions about free
+software licenses whether or not they are listed here. The licenses are
+more or less in alphabetical order within each section.</p>
-<p>
-If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our
+<p>If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our
help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license
-and avoid various practical problems.
-</p>
+and avoid various practical problems.</p>
-<p>
-By the way, if you believe you have found a violation of one of our
+<p>By the way, if you believe you have found a violation of one of our
copyleft licenses, please refer to our <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html";>license violation
page</a>.</p>
+href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html";>license violation
+page</a>.</p>
<hr />
-<h2><a id="SoftwareLicenses" href="#TOCSoftwareLicenses">Software
Licenses</a></h2>
-<ul>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents ABOVE TOO!
-->
-<!-- But change here the -->
-<!-- id="TOC..." -->
-<!-- to id="TOC2..." -->
-<!-- so the back link goes to the full Table of Contents. -->
- <li><a href="#GPLCompatibleLicenses"
- id="TOC2GPLCompatibleLicenses">GPL-Compatible Free Software
Licenses</a></li>
- <li><a href="#GPLIncompatibleLicenses"
- id="TOC2GPLIncompatibleLicenses">GPL-Incompatible, Free Software
Licenses</a></li>
- <li><a href="#NonFreeSoftwareLicense"
- id="TOC2NonFreeSoftwareLicenses">Non-Free Software Licenses</a></li>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents ABOVE TOO!
-->
-<!-- But change here the -->
-<!-- id="TOC..." -->
-<!-- to id="TOC2..." -->
-<!-- so the back link goes to the full Table of Contents. -->
- </ul>
-
-<hr />
+<h2><a id="SoftwareLicenses">Software Licenses</a></h2>
-<p>
-<strong>
-The following licenses do qualify as
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free software</a>
licenses,
-and are compatible with the <a href="#GNUGPL">GNU GPL</a>:
-</strong></p>
-
-<h3><a id="GPLCompatibleLicenses"
href="#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses">GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses</a></h3>
+<h3><a id="GPLCompatibleLicenses">
+ GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses</a></h3>
+<p><strong>The following licenses qualify as <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free software</a>
+licenses, and are compatible with the <a href="#GNUGPL">GNU
+GPL</a>.</strong></p>
<dl>
-<dt><a id="GNUGPL" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html";>GNU General
Public
- License</a>, or GNU GPL for short.</dt>
+<dt><a id="GNUGPL" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html";>
+ GNU General Public License</a>, or GNU GPL for short.</dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a free software license, and a copyleft license. We recommend
-it for most software packages.
-</p></dd>
+it for most software packages.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html";>GNU Lesser General Public
- License</a>, or GNU LGPL for short.</dt>
+<dt><a id="LGPL" href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html";>
+ GNU Lesser General Public License</a>, or GNU LGPL for short.</dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license,
-because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with the
-GNU GPL. We recommend it for
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html";>special circumstances
only</a>.</p>
-<p>
-Between version 2 and 2.1, the GNU LGPL was renamed from the GNU
-Library General Public License to the GNU Lesser General Public License to
-better reflect its actual purpose. Namely, it is not just for
-libraries, and the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html";>GNU
GPL is
-sometimes more appropriate for libraries</a>.</p>
-</dd>
+because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with
+the GNU GPL. We recommend it for <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html";>special
+circumstances only</a>.</p>
+<p>Between version 2 and 2.1, the GNU LGPL was renamed from the GNU
+Library General Public License to the GNU Lesser General Public License
+to better reflect its actual purpose. Namely, it is not just for
+libraries, and the <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html";>GNU GPL is
+sometimes more appropriate for libraries</a>.</p></dd>
<dt>License of Guile</dt>
@@ -167,331 +150,296 @@
permission to link with non-free software. As a result, it is not a strong
copyleft, and it is compatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend it for
special circumstances only--much the same circumstances where you might
-consider using the <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html";>LGPL</a>.
-</p></dd>
+consider using the <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html";>LGPL</a>.</p></dd>
<dt>License of the run-time units of the GNU Ada compiler</dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is much like that of Guile.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is much like that of Guile.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="X11License"
href="http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#3";>X11 License</a></dt>
+<dt><a
href="http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/dellavedova/software/artistic2.html";>
+ Clarified Artistic License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-compatible with the GNU GPL. Older versions of XFree86 used the same
-license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later
-versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.1 license (which is
-GPL-incompatible).</p>
-<p>
-This license is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is
-misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.</p></dd>
-
+<p>This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It
+is the minimal set of changes needed to correct the vagueness of the <a
+href="#ArtisticLicense">Original Artistic License</a>.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="Expat" href="http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt";>Expat
License</a>.</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.sleepycat.com/download/oslicense.html";>
+ Berkeley Database License</a> (aka the Sleepycat Software Product
+ License)</dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as
-the <strong>MIT License</strong>.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="StandardMLofNJ"
href="http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/smlnj/license.html";>
-Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt";>
+ Boost Software License</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-compatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+compatible with the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="PublicDomain">Public Domain</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="ModifiedBSD"
+ href="http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5";>
+ Modified BSD license</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the
-material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically
-speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well
-have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public
-domain status is compatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is
+listed in the <em>General</em> section.)</p>
+<p>This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the
+advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free
+software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
+the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky
+to recommend use of “the BSD license”, because confusion
+could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed <a
+href="#OriginalBSD"><em>original</em> BSD license</a>. To avoid this
+risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the
+revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.</p>
-<dt><a id="CeCILL" href="http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html";>CeCILL
version 2</a></dt>
+<p>This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt><a id="CeCILL" href="http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html";>
+ CeCILL version 2</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>The CeCILL is a free software license, explicitly compatible with the
GNU GPL.</p>
<p>The text of the CeCILL uses a couple of biased terms that ought to be
-avoided: "intellectual property" (see <a
-href="/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml">this article</a>) and "protection"
-(see <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">this article</a>); this
-decision was unfortunate, because reading the license tends to spread
-the presuppositions of those terms. However, this does not cause any
+avoided: “intellectual property&rqduo; (see <a
+href="/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml">this article</a>) and
+“protection” (see <a
+href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">this article</a>); this decision
+was unfortunate, because reading the license tends to spread the
+presuppositions of those terms. However, this does not cause any
particular problem for the programs released under the CeCILL.</p>
-
<p>Section 9.4 of the CeCILL commits the program's developers to certain
forms of cooperation with the users, if someone attacks the program
with a patent. You might look at that as a problem for the developer;
however, if you are sure you would want to cooperate with the users in
those ways anyway, then it isn't a problem for you.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="CryptixGeneralLicense" href="http://www.cryptix.org/LICENSE.TXT";>
-Cryptix General License</a></dt>
+
+<dt><a id="CryptixGeneralLicense"
+ href="http://www.cryptix.org/LICENSE.TXT";>
+ Cryptix General License</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-compatible with the GNU GPL. It is very similar to the X11 license.
-</p></dd>
+compatible with the GNU GPL. It is very similar to the X11 license.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="ModifiedBSD" href="http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5";>
-Modified BSD license</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="eCos20" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ecos-license.html";>
+ eCos license version 2.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is
-listed in the "General" section.)</p>
-<p>
-This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the
-advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free
-software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
-<p>
-If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky
-to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could
-easily occur and lead to use of the flawed
-<a href="#OriginalBSD"><em>original</em> BSD license</a>. To avoid this
-risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and
-the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.</p>
-<p>
-This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.
-</p>
-</dd>
+<p>The eCos license version 2.0 is a GPL-compatible free software
+license. It consists of the GPL, plus an exception allowing linking to
+software not under the GPL. This license has the same <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html";>disadvantages</a>
+as the LGPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="NCSA"
-href="http://www.otm.uiuc.edu/faculty/forms/opensource.asp";>University of
-Illinois/NCSA Open Source License</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This license is based on the terms of the <a href="#Expat">Expat</a> and
-<a href="#ModifiedBSD">modified BSD</a> licenses. It is a simple,
-permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU
-GPL.</p>
-</dd>
-<dt><a id="FreeBSD"
href="http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html";>
-FreeBSD license</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/eiffel-forum-license-2.html";>
+ Eiffel Forum License, version 2</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>
-This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and
-another clause removed. (It is also sometimes called the "2-clause
-BSD license".) It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software
-license, compatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
-<p>
-If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-the FreeBSD license is a reasonable choice. However, please don't
-call it a ``BSD'' or ``BSD-style'' license, because that is likely to
-cause confusion which could lead to use of the
-flawed <a href="#OriginalBSD"><em>original</em> BSD license</a>.
-</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. <a
+href="http://www.gobosoft.com/eiffel/gobo/eiffel_forum_license_v1.html";>Previous
+releases</a> of the Eiffel license are not compatible with the
+GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html";>
-License of ZLib</a></dt>
+
+<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eudatagrid.php";>
+ EU DataGrid Software License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license, and compatible with the GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
+compatible with the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt>License of the iMatix Standard Function Library</dt>
+<dt><a id="Expat" href="http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt";>
+ Expat License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license and is GPL compatible.
+<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
+compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as
+the <em>MIT License</em>.
</p></dd>
-<dt><a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231";>
-W3C Software Notice and License</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license and is GPL compatible.
-</p></dd>
+<dt><a id="FreeBSD"
+ href="http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html";>
+ FreeBSD license</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and
+another clause removed. (It is also sometimes called the
+“2-clause BSD license”.) It is a simple, permissive
+non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
+<p>If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
+the FreeBSD license is a reasonable choice. However, please don't call
+it a “BSD” or “BSD-style” license, because that
+is likely to cause confusion which could lead to use of the flawed <a
+href="#OriginalBSD"><em>original</em> BSD license</a>.</p> </dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.sleepycat.com/download/oslicense.html";>Berkeley
Database
-License</a> (aka the Sleepycat Software Product License)</dt>
+<dt>License of the iMatix Standard Function Library</dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a free software license and is GPL compatible.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.openldap.org/software/release/license.html";
id="newOpenLDAP">
-OpenLDAP License, Version 2.7</a></dt>
+<dt><a
+ href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/intel-open-source-license.html";>
+ Intel Open Source License (as published by OSI)</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license that is
-compatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a Free Software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html";>
-License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="NCSA"
+ href="http://www.otm.uiuc.edu/faculty/forms/opensource.asp";
+ NCSA/University of Illinois Open Source License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU
-GPL. Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are under
-other licenses (see below).
-</p></dd>
+<p>This license is based on the terms of the <a href="#Expat">Expat</a>
+and <a href="#ModifiedBSD">modified BSD</a> licenses. It is a simple,
+permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU
+GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.python.org/2.0.1/license.html";>
-License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions</a></dt>
+<dt>License of Netscape Javascript</dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL.
-Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python (1.6b1, through
-2.0 and 2.1) are under a different license (<a href="#PythonOld">see
-below</a>).
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is the disjunction of the <a href="#NPL">Netscape Public
+License</a> and the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU
+GPL</a>. Because of that, it is a free software license, compatible
+with the GNU GPL, but not a strong copyleft.</p>
+<p>This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your
+package GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible. However, you can also
+accomplish that by using the LGPL or the Guile license.</p>
+<p>Such a disjunctive license might be a good choice if you have been
+using the MPL, and want to change to a GPL-compatible license without
+subtracting any permission you have given for previous versions.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><a id="newOpenLDAP"
+ href="http://www.openldap.org/software/release/license.html";>
+ OpenLDAP License, Version 2.7</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license that is
+compatible with the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
<dt><a id="PerlLicense">License of Perl</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This license is the disjunction of the
-<a href="#ArtisticLicense">Artistic License</a>
-and the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>--in other
words, you can
-choose either of those two licenses. It qualifies as a free software
-license, but it may not be a real copyleft. It is compatible with the <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a> because the GNU GPL is
one of the
-alternatives.</p>
-<p>
-We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you
-write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming. Outside
-of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to use just the
-GNU GPL.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This license is the disjunction of the <a
+href="#ArtisticLicense">Artistic License</a> and the <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>--in other words,
+you can choose either of those two licenses. It qualifies as a free
+software license, but it may not be a real copyleft. It is compatible
+with the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>
+because the GNU GPL is one of the alternatives.</p>
+<p>We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package
+you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming.
+Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to
+use just the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a
href="http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/dellavedova/software/artistic2.html";>
-Clarified Artistic License</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="PublicDomain">Public Domain</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It
-is the minimal set of changes needed to correct the vagueness of the <a
-href="#ArtisticLicense">Original Artistic License</a>.
+<p>Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the
+material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically
+speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well
+have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public
+domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.
</p></dd>
-<!--
-<dt><a href="http://dev.perl.org/rfc/346.html";>Artistic License 2.0</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It
-is not in use yet to our knowledge; this license is being considered for
-use in Perl 6 as part of a disjunctive dual licensing scheme.</p>
-<p>
-If you are thinking of releasing a program under
-<a href="#ArtisticLicense">Original Artistic License</a>, please consider
-this revised version instead. However, please do investigate other
-GPL-compatible, Free Software licensing options listed here first.</p>
-</dd>
--->
-
-<dt><a href="http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL";>
-Zope Public License version 2.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.python.org/2.0.1/license.html";>
+ License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license
-which is compatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL.
+Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python (1.6b1,
+through 2.0 and 2.1) are under a different license (<a
+href="#PythonOld">see below</a>).</p></dd>
-<dt><a
href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/intel-open-source-license.html";>
-Intel Open Source License (as published by OSI)</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html";>
+ License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a Free Software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL.
+Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are under other
+licenses (see above and below). </p></dd>
-<dt>License of Netscape Javascript</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt";>
+ License of Ruby</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is the disjunction of the <a href="#NPL">Netscape Public
-License</a> and the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU
GPL</a>. Because of
-that, it is a free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL, but not a
-strong copyleft.</p>
-<p>
-This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your package
-GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible. However you can also accomplish that by
-using the LGPL or the Guile license.</p>
-<p>
-Such a disjunctive license might be a good choice if you have been using the
-MPL, and want to change to a GPL-compatible license without subtracting any
-permission you have given for previous versions.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license, compatible with the GPL via an
+explicit dual-licensing clause.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ecos-license.html";>eCos license
version 2.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="StandardMLofNJ"
+ href="http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/smlnj/license.html";>Standard
+ ML of New Jersey Copyright License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The eCos license version 2.0 is a GPL-compatible Free Software license.
-It consists of the GPL, plus an exception allowing linking to software
-not under the GPL. This license has the same
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html";>disadvantages</a>
-as the LGPL.
+<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
+compatible with the GNU GPL.
</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/eiffel-forum-license-2.html";>
-Eiffel Forum License, version 2</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a Free Software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
-Note that
-<a
href="http://www.gobosoft.com/eiffel/gobo/eiffel_forum_license_v1.html";>previous
-releases</a> of the Eiffel license are not compatible with the GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
<dt><a href="http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/uganda.html";>
-License of Vim, Version 6.1 or later</a></dt>
+ License of Vim, Version 6.1 or later</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a free software license, partially copyleft but not
really. It is compatible with the GPL, by an explicit conversion
-clause.
-</p></dd>
+clause.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt";>
-Boost Software License</a></dt>
+<dt><a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231";>
+ W3C Software Notice and License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-compatible with the GNU GPL.
+<p>This is a free software license and is GPL compatible.
</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eudatagrid.php";>EU
-DataGrid Software License</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="X11License"
+ href="http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#3";>
+ X11 License</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-compatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+compatible with the GNU GPL. Older versions of XFree86 used the same
+license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later
+versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.1 license (which is
+GPL-incompatible).</p>
+<p>This license is sometimes called the <em>MIT license</em>, but that
+term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for
+software.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt";>The license of
Ruby</a></dt>
+
+<dt><a href="http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html";>
+ License of ZLib</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a Free Software license, compatible with the GPL via an
-explicit dual-licensing clause.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a free software license, and compatible with the GPL.</p></dd>
-</dl>
+<dt><a id="Zope20" href="http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL";>
+ Zope Public License version 2.0</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license
+which is compatible with the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
+
+</dl>
<hr />
-<h3><a id="GPLIncompatibleLicenses" href="#TOCGPLIncompatibleLicenses">
-GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses</a></h3>
+<h3><a id="GPLIncompatibleLicenses">
+ GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses</a></h3>
-<p>
-<strong>The following licenses are
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free software</a>
licenses, but are <em>not
-compatible</em> with the <a href="#GNUGPL">GNU GPL</a>:</strong></p>
+<p><strong>The following licenses are <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free software</a>
+licenses, but are <em>not compatible</em> with the <a href="#GNUGPL">GNU
+GPL</a>.</strong></p>
<dl>
-<dt><a id="XFree861.1License">XFree86 1.1 License</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
-incompatible with the GNU GPL because of its requirements that
-apply to all documentation in the distribution that contain
-acknowledgements.</p>
-<p>There are currently several variants of XFree86, and only
-some of them use this license. Some continue to use the X11 license.</p>
-</dd>
-
<dt><a href="http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html";>
-Affero General Public License</a></dt>
+ Affero General Public License</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>The Affero General Public License is a free software license,
copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL. It consists of the GNU
@@ -505,389 +453,354 @@
</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/condor-public-license.html";>The
Condor Public License</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a Free Software license, incompatible with the GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><a id="OriginalBSD" href="http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#6";>
-Original BSD license</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>(Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in
-the "UCB/LBL" section. This license is also sometimes called the
-``4-clause BSD license''.)</p>
-
-<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a
-serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not
-fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical problems</a>,
including
-incompatibility with the GNU GPL.</p>
-<p>
-We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you
-write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free
-software license, it is much better to use the <a href="#ModifiedBSD">
-modified BSD license</a> or the X11 license. However, there is no
-reason not to use programs that have been released under the original
-BSD license.</p>
-</dd>
-
-
-<dt><a id="OpenSSL" href="http://www.sdisw.com/openssl.htm";>
-OpenSSL license</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/academic.php";>
+ Academic Free License, version 2.1</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, One of
-them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The
-combination results in a copyleft free software license that is
-incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause
-like the original BSD license and the Apache license.</p>
-<p>
-We recommend using GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL in software you write.
-However, there is no reason not to use OpenSSL and applications that
-work with OpenSSL.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>The Academic Free License, version 2.1, is a free software license,
+not copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL in several ways. It
+contains contract clauses similar to the <a href="#OSLRant">Open
+Software License</a>, and should be avoided for the same
+reasons.</p></dd>
<dt><a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/academic.php";>
-Academic Free License, version 1.1</a>.</dt>
+ Academic Free License, version 1.1</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The Academic Free License, version 1.1, is a free software
-license, not copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL in several
-ways. It is advertised as a "compatible upgrade" for "licenses such
-as BSD and MIT", but it isn't; the revised BSD license and the MIT
-license are GPL-compatible, but the AFL is not.</p>
-<p>
-The AFL is incompatible with the GPL for two reasons. One is that its
-rules about trademark use appear to go beyond what trademark law
+<p>The Academic Free License, version 1.1, is a free software license,
+not copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL in several ways. It is
+advertised as a “compatible upgrade” for “licenses
+such as BSD and MIT”, but it isn't; the <a
+href="#ModifiedBSD">modified BSD</a> license and the <a
+href="#X11License">X11 license</a> (aka MIT) are GPL-compatible, but the
+AFL is not.</p>
+<p>The AFL is incompatible with the GPL for two reasons. One is that
+its rules about trademark use appear to go beyond what trademark law
itself actually requires in some countries, prohibiting what would
legally be fair use of the trademark.</p>
-<p>
-Another incompatibility comes from its "Mutual termination for Patent
-Action" clause. Putting aside the difficult question of whether this
-sort of clause is a good idea or a bad one, it is incompatible with
-the GPL.</p>
-<p>
-Because of the incompatibility, we urge you not to use the AFL for
+<p>Another incompatibility comes from its &ldquot;Mutual termination for
+Patent Action” clause. Putting aside the difficult question of
+whether this sort of clause is a good idea or a bad one, it is
+incompatible with the GPL.</p>
+<p>Because of the incompatibility, we urge you not to use the AFL for
programs you write; however, there is no reason to avoid running
programs that have been released under this license.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/academic.php";>
-Academic Free License, version 2.1</a>.</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0";>
+ Apache License, Version 2.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The Academic Free License, version 2.1, is a free software license,
-not copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL in several ways. It
-contains contract clauses similar to <a href="#OSLRant">the Open
-Software License</a>, and should be avoided for the same reasons.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
+GPL. The Apache License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a
+specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent
+termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those
+patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they
+are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-1.0.txt";>
-Open Software License, version 1.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.1";>
+ Apache License, Version 1.1</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The Open Software License, version 1.0, is a free software
-license. Its authors say it is intended to be copyleft, but we are
-having trouble determining whether the copyleft provisions really
-work. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL in several ways.</p>
-<p>
-<a name="OSLRant"></a> All versions of the Open Software License have
-a term which requires that distributors to try to obtain explicit
-assent to the license. This means that distributing OSL software on
-ordinary FTP sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or
-storing the software in an ordinary version control system, is
-arguably a violation of the license and would subject you to possible
-termination of the license. Thus, the Open Software License makes it
-very difficult to develop software using the ordinary tools of Free
-Software development. For this reason, and because it is incompatible
-with the GPL, we recommend that no version of the OSL be used for any
-software.
-</p>
-<p>
-We urge you not to use the Open Software License for software you
-write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that
-have been released under this license.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few
+requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
+<p>We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write.
+However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been
+released under this license, such as Apache.</p></dd>
<dt><a href="http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.0";>
-Apache License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
+ Apache License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical problems</a> like
those of the
-original BSD license, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with
+<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical problems</a>
+like those of the original BSD license, including incompatibility with
+the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.1";>
-Apache License, Version 1.1</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="apsl2" href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt";>
+ Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 2</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few
-requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
-<p>
-We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write.
-However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been
-released under this license, such as Apache.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We
+recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write,
+but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this
+license. <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html";>More
+explanation.</a></p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0";>
-Apache License, Version 2.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="OriginalBSD" href="http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#6";>
+ Original BSD license</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
-GPL. The Apache License is incompatible with the GPL because
-it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain
-patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't
-think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but
-nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
-</p></dd>
+<p>(Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in
+the <em>UCB/LBL</em> section. This license is also sometimes called the
+“4-clause BSD license”.)</p>
+<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with
+a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The
+flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free.
+But it does cause <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical problems</a>,
+including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.</p>
+<p>We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you
+write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free
+software license, it is much better to use the <a
+href="#ModifiedBSD">modified BSD license</a> or the X11 license.
+However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released
+under the original BSD license.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL";>
-Zope Public License version 1</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="CDDL"
+ href="http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt";>
+ Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a simple, fairly permissive non-copyleft free software license
-with <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical problems</a>
like those of the
-original BSD license, including incompatibility with the <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>.</p>
-<p>
-We urge you not to use the ZPL version 1 for software you write.
-However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been
-released under this license, such as previous versions of Zope.</p>
-<p>
-The latest version of Zope is available under a GPL-compatible license.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
+has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>. It requires
+that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only
+requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation
+for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the
+GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked
+together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.</p>
+<p>Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml";>"intellectual
+property"</a>.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="xinetd" href="http://www.xinetd.org/license";>License of
xinetd</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="CommonPublicLicense10"
+ href="http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html";>
+ Common Public License Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with the GPL.
-It is incompatible because it places extra restrictions on redistribution
-of modified versions that contradict the redistribution requirements in
-the GPL.
-</p></dd>
-
+<p>This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
+<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>.</p>
+<p>The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has
+various specific requirements that are not in the GPL. For example, it
+requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require.
+(We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad
+idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)</p>
+</dd>
-<dt><a id="PythonOld"
href="http://www.handle.net/python_licenses/python1.6_9-5-00.html";>
-License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions, through 2.0 and 2.1</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/condor-public-license.html";>
+ Condor Public License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
-The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by the
-laws of the "State of Virginia", in the USA, and the GPL does not permit
-this.
+<p>This is a free software license, incompatible with the GPL.
</p></dd>
-<dt>Old OpenLDAP License, Version 2.3</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html";>
+ Eclipse Public License Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few
-requirements (in sections 4 and 5) that render it incompatible with
-the GNU GPL. Note that the latest version of OpenLDAP has
-a <a href="#newOpenLDAP"> different license</a> that is compatible with
-the GNU GPL.</p>
-<p>
-We urge you not to use the older OpenLDAP license for software you
-write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that
-have been released under this license.</p>
-</dd>
-
+<p>The Eclipse Public License is similar to the <a
+href="#CommonPublicLicense10">Common Public License</a>, and our
+comments on the CPL apply equally to the EPL. The only change is that
+the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patent
+infringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'd
+program.</p></dd>
<dt><a
href="http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/license10.html";>
-IBM Public License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
+ IBM Public License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>.</p>
-<p>
-The IBM Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has
+<p>The IBM Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has
various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.</p>
-<p>
-For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the
+<p>For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the
GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license
requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are
incompatible with the GNU GPL.)</p>
</dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html";>Common Public License
Version 1.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html";>
+ Interbase Public License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>.</p>
-<p>
-The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has
-various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.</p>
-<p> For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the
-GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license
-requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are
-incompatible with the GNU GPL.)</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license that is essentially the same as the
+Mozilla Public License, Version 1.1. Like the MPL, the IPL has some
+complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That
+is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the IPL cannot
+legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the IPL for this
+reason.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html";>Eclipse Public License
Version 1.0</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>The Eclipse Public License is similar to the Common Public License,
-and our comments on the CPL apply equally to the EPL. The only change
-is that the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language
-regarding patent infringement suits specifically against Contributors
-to the EPL'd program.</p>
-</dd>
-<dt><a href="http://phorum.org/license.txt";>
-Phorum License, Version 2.0</a></dt>
+<dt>Jabber Open Source License, Version 1.0</dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>. Section 5 makes the
license
-incompatible with the GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>The license is a free software license, incompatible with the GPL.
+It permits relicensing under a certain class of licenses, those which
+include all the requirements of the Jabber license. The GPL is not a
+member of that class, so the Jabber license does not permit relicensing
+under the GPL. Therefore, it is not compatible.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><a href="http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3a.txt";>
+ LaTeX Project Public License 1.3a</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>We have not written a full analysis of this license, but it is a free
+software license, with less stringent requirements on distribution than
+LPPL 1.2 (described next). It is still incompatible with the GPL
+because some modified versions must include a copy of or pointer to an
+unmodified version.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-2.txt";>LaTeX Project
Public License 1.2</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-2.txt";>
+ LaTeX Project Public License 1.2</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This license is an incomplete statement of the distribution terms
for LaTeX. As far as it goes, it is a free software license, but
incompatible with the <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a> because it has
many requirements that are not in the GPL.</p>
-<p>
-This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to
+<p>This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to
publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just
barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any
modified file must have a new name.</p>
-<p>
-The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that LaTeX has
-a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify ``use file bar
-when file foo is requested''. With this facility, the requirement is
-merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a
-serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program
-non-free.</p>
-<p>
-The LPPL says that some files, in certain versions of LaTeX, may have
+<p>The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that TeX has
+a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify “use file
+bar when file foo is requested”. With this facility, the
+requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same
+requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude
+it makes the program non-free.</p>
+<p>The LPPL says that some files, in certain versions of LaTeX, may have
additional restrictions, which could render them non-free. For this
reason, it may take some careful checking to produce a version of
LaTeX that is free software.</p>
-<p>
-The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a
+<p>The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a
machine where a few other people could log in and access them in
itself constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold
this claim, but it is not good for people to start making the claim.</p>
-<p>
-Please do not use this license for any other project.</p>
-<p>
-Note: These comments are based on version 1.2 (3 Sep 1999) of the LPPL.</p>
+<p>Please do not use this license for any other project.</p>
+<p>Note: These comments are for version 1.2 (3 Sep 1999) of the LPPL.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3a.txt";>LaTeX Project
Public License 1.3a</a></dt>
+
+<dt><a id="lucent102" href="http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html";>
+ Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (Plan 9 license)</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>We have not written a full analysis of this license. But it is a Free
-Software license. It is incompatible with the GPL because some modified
-versions must include a copy of or pointer to an unmodified version.
+<p>This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL.
+We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you
+write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license.
</p></dd>
+
<dt><a id="MPL" href="http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html";>
-Mozilla Public License (MPL)</a></dt>
+ Mozilla Public License (MPL)</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike
-the <a href="#X11License">X11 license</a>, it has some complex restrictions
-that make it incompatible with the <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>.
-That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot
-legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this
-reason.</p>
-<p>
-However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program
-(or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If
-part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any
-other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the
-program has a GPL-compatible license.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
+unlike the <a href="#X11License">X11 license</a>, it has some complex
+restrictions that make it incompatible with the <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>. That is, a
+module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally
+be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.</p>
+<p>However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program
+(or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part
+of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other
+GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program
+has a GPL-compatible license.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="CDDL"
href="http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt";>
-Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="NPL" href="http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0.html";>
+ Netscape Public License (NPL)</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
-has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>. It requires
-that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only
-requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation
-for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the
-GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked
-together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.</p>
-<p>
-Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml";>"intellectual
property"</a>.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, and
+incompatible with the GNU GPL. It consists of the Mozilla Public
+License with an added clause that permits Netscape to use your added
+code <em>even in their proprietary versions of the program</em>. Of
+course, they do not give <em>you</em> permission to use <em>their</em>
+code in the analogous way. We urge you not to use the NPL.</p></dd>
<dt><a href="http://bits.netizen.com.au/licenses/NOSL/nosl.txt";>
-Netizen Open Source License (NOSL), Version 1.0</a></dt>
+ Netizen Open Source License (NOSL), Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a free software license that is essentially the same as the
Mozilla Public License, Version 1.1. Like the MPL, the NOSL has some
-complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a
-module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the NOSL cannot legally be
-linked together. We urge you not to use the NOSL for this reason.
-</p></dd>
+complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That
+is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the NOSL cannot
+legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the NOSL for this
+reason.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html";>
-Interbase Public License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/nokia.html";>
+ Nokia Open Source License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license that is essentially the same as
-the Mozilla Public License, Version 1.1. Like the MPL, the IPL has
-some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
-That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the IPL
-cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the IPL for
-this reason.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is similar to the Mozilla Public License: a free
+software license incompatible with the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/spl.html";>
-Sun Public License</a></dt>
+<dt>Old OpenLDAP License, Version 2.3</dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is essentially the same as the Mozilla Public License: a free
-software license incompatible with the GNU GPL. Please do not confuse this
-with the <a href="#SunCommunitySourceLicense">Sun Community Source
-License</a> which is not a free software license.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few
+requirements (in sections 4 and 5) that render it incompatible with
+the GNU GPL. Note that the latest version of OpenLDAP has
+a <a href="#newOpenLDAP">different license</a> that is compatible with
+the GNU GPL.</p>
+<p>We urge you not to use the older OpenLDAP license for software you
+write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have
+been released under this license.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/nokia.html";>Nokia Open Source
License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-1.0.txt";>
+ Open Software License, version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is similar to the Mozilla Public License: a free
-software license incompatible with the GNU GPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>The Open Software License, version 1.0, is a free software
+license. Its authors say it is intended to be copyleft, but we are
+having trouble determining whether the copyleft provisions really
+work. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL in several ways.</p>
+<p><a name="OSLRant"></a>All versions of the Open Software License have
+a term which requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to
+the license. This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP
+sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the
+software in an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation
+of the license and would subject you to possible termination of the
+license. Thus, the Open Software License makes it very difficult to
+develop software using the ordinary tools of free software development.
+For this reason, and because it is incompatible with the GPL, we
+recommend that no version of the OSL be used for any software.</p>
-<dt><a id="NPL" href="http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0.html";>
-Netscape Public License (NPL)</a></dt>
+<p>We urge you not to use the Open Software License for software you
+write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that
+have been released under this license.</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt><a id="OpenSSL" href="http://www.sdisw.com/openssl.htm";>
+ OpenSSL license</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, and incompatible
-with the GNU GPL. It consists of the Mozilla Public License with an added
-clause that permits Netscape to use your added code <em>even in their
-proprietary versions of the program</em>. Of course, they do not give
-<em>you</em> permission to use <em>their</em> code in the analogous way. We
-urge you not to use the NPL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them
+being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination
+results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with
+the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD
+license and the Apache license.</p>
+<p>We recommend using GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL in software you write.
+However, there is no reason not to use OpenSSL and applications that
+work with OpenSSL.</p></dd>
-<dt>Jabber Open Source License, Version 1.0</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://phorum.org/license.txt";>
+ Phorum License, Version 2.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The license is a free software license, incompatible with the GPL.
-It permits relicensing under a certain class of licenses, those which
-include all the requirements of the Jabber license. The GPL is not a
-member of that class, so the Jabber license does not permit
-relicensing under the GPL. Therefore, it is not compatible.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>. Section 5 makes
+the license incompatible with the GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html";>
-Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt";>
+ PHP License, Version 3.01</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, which is
-incompatible with the GNU GPL because of details rather than any
-major policy.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft
+free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
+<p>We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP
+add-ons.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a id="PythonOld"
+ href="http://www.handle.net/python_licenses/python1.6_9-5-00.html";>
+ License of Python 1.6b1 through 2.0 and 2.1</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
+The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by the
+laws of the State of Virginia, in the USA, and the GPL does not permit
+this.</p></dd>
<dt><a href="http://www.trolltech.com/developer/licensing/qpl.html";>
-Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0</a></dt>
+ Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible with
the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience, because modified
@@ -915,298 +828,138 @@
<p>
You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the
program. Add it in the source files, after the notice that says
-the program is covered by the GNU GPL.</p>
-</dd>
-
-
-<dt><a href="http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt";>
-PHP License, Version 3.01</a></dt>
-
-<dd><p>This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft
-free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
-<p>
-We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP
-add-ons.</p>
-</dd>
-
-
-<dt>Zend License, Version 2.0</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This license is used by one part of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft
-free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL, and
-has <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical problems</a>
like those
-of the original BSD license.</p>
-<p>
-We recommend that you not use this license for anything you write.</p>
-</dd>
-
-
-<dt><a href="http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html";>
- Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (Plan 9 license)</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL.
-We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you
-write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><a id="apsl2" href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt";>
-Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 2</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL.
-We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you
-write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under
-this license. <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html";>More
explanation is
-available</a>.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-</dl>
-
-
-<hr />
-
-<h3><a id="NonFreeSoftwareLicense" href="#TOCNonFreeSoftwareLicenses">
-Non-Free Software Licenses</a></h3>
-
-<p>
-<strong>The following licenses <em>do not qualify</em> as
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free software</a>
licenses.
-A non-free license is automatically incompatible with
-the <a href="#GNUGPL">GNU GPL</a>.</strong></p>
-<p>
-Of course, we urge you to avoid using non-free software licenses, and to
-avoid non-free software in general.</p>
-<p>
-There is no way we could list all the known non-free software licenses
-here; after all, every proprietary software company has its own. We
-focus here on licenses that are often mistaken for free software
-licenses but are, in fact, <strong>not</strong> free software
-licenses.</p>
-<p>
-We have provided links to these licenses when we can do so without
-violating our general policy: that we do not make links to sites that
-promote, encourage or facilitate the use of non-free software
-packages. The last thing we want to do is give any non-free program
-some gratis publicity that might encourage more people to use it. For
-the same reason, we have avoided naming the programs for which a
-license is used, unless we think that for specific reasons it won't
-backfire.</p>
-
-<dl>
-
-
-<dt><a id="ArtisticLicense">(Original) Artistic License</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too
-vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is
-not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of
-<a href="#PerlLicense">the disjunctive license of Perl</a>.</p>
-<p>
-The problems are matters of wording, not substance. There is a
-revised version of the Artistic License (dubbed
-"<a href="http://dev.perl.org/rfc/346.html";>Artistic License 2.0</a>")
-which is a free software license, and even compatible with the GNU
-GPL. This license is being considered for use in Perl 6. If you are
-thinking of releasing a program under the Artistic License, please do
-investigate other GPL-compatible, Free Software licensing options
-listed here first.</p>
-<p> The Artistic License 2.0 is currently in a draft phase with The
-Perl Foundation. FSF is in active negotiations with the Perl
-Foundation regarding the license, and we look forward to a result
-which will benefit all users.</p>
+the program is covered by the GNU GPL.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.2.txt";>
-Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 1.x</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>Versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 are
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html";>not free software
licenses
-(follow the link for more explanation)</a>. Please don't use these
-licenses, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released
-under them. <a href="#apsl2">Version 2.0 of the APSL</a> is a free software
license.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php";>
-Reciprocal Public License</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>The Reciprocal Public License is a non-free license because of three
-problems. 1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy.
-2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication
-of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of any modified
-version that an organization uses, even privately.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><a
href="http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/l/lha/current/copyright";>
-Lha license</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html";>
+ Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The lha license must be considered non-free because it is too
-unclear to give clear permissions.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, which is
+incompatible with the GNU GPL because of details rather than any
+major policy.</p></dd>
-<dt><a
href="http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/pdf/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt";>
-NASA Open Source Agreement</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/spl.html";>
+ Sun Public License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>
-The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software
-license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your
-"original creation". Free software development depends on combining
-code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this.</p>
-
-<p>We urge you
-not to use this license. In addition, if you are a United States
-citizen, please write to NASA and call for the use of a truly free
-software license.</p></dd>
+<p>This is essentially the same as the Mozilla Public License: a free
+software license incompatible with the GNU GPL. Please do not confuse
+this with the <a href="#SunCommunitySourceLicense">Sun Community Source
+License</a> which is not a free software license.</p></dd>
-<dt><a
href="http://www.celepar.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=69";>
-GPL for Computer Programs of the Public Administration</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>
-The GPL-PA (whose original name in Portuguese is "Licença Pública
-Geral para Administração Pública") is non-free for several reasons:
-<ul>
-<li>It permits use only in "normal circumstances".</li>
-<li>It does not allow distribution of source code without binaries.</li>
-<li>Its permissions lapse after 50 years.</li>
-</ul>
-</dd>
-<dt><a href="http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB/";>
-SGI Free Software License B, version 1.1</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="XFree861.1License">XFree86 1.1 License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>
- The "SGI Free Software License B", although its name says "free",
- is not a Free Software License. It has three major problems. 1.
- It restricts its patent license to unmodified versions of the
- software. 2. It terminates if your use of the software infringes
- copyrights or patents which are not SGI's. This is problematic
- because it gives SGI grounds to sue you even when you have done
- nothing to them. 3. The license requires you to inform SGI of
- legal problems with the software. This violates your privacy
- rights, and can conflict with professional confidentiality
- requirements, such as attorney-client privilege.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
+incompatible with the GNU GPL because of its requirements that apply to
+all documentation in the distribution that contain acknowledgements.</p>
+<p>There are currently several variants of XFree86, and only some of
+them use this license. Some continue to use the <a
+href="#X11License">X11 license</a>.</p></dd>
-<dt><a id="SunCommunitySourceLicense">
-Sun Community Source License</a></dt>
+<dt><a id="xinetd" href="http://www.xinetd.org/license";>
+ License of xinetd</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms such as
-publication of modified versions. Please don't use this license, and we
-urge you to avoid any software that has been released under it.
-</p></dd>
-
-
-<dt>Old Plan 9 License</dt>
-<dd><p>This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms
-such as the right to make and use private changes. Of course you
-should not use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software
-that has been released under it.
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html";>A detailed discussion
of this
-license is also available</a>.</p>
-<p>
-In September 2002 it was observed that the published license for Plan
-9 had been modified, adding more restrictions to it, although its date
-still said 09/20/00. However, a further license change in 2003 made
-Plan 9 free software.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with the GPL.
+It is incompatible because it places extra restrictions on
+redistribution of modified versions that contradict the redistribution
+requirements in the GPL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://koala.ilog.fr/jackaroo/OPL_1_0.TXT";>
-Open Public License</a></dt>
+<dt>Zend License, Version 2.0</dt>
<dd>
-<p>
-This is not a free software license, because it requires sending
-every published modified version to a specific initial developer.
-There are also some other words in this license whose meaning we're
-not sure of that might also be problematic.
-</p>
-<!-- removing this link because it is dead 05/18/04
-<p> There is
-<a href="http://enhydra.enhydra.org/software/license/opl.html";>another
-site for the Open Public License</a>. We are not sure which copy is
-the canonical one; these two differ only in a minor way that doesn't
-change our evaluation of the license.</p> -->
+<p>This license is used by one part of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free
+software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL, and has <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical problems</a>
+like those of the original BSD license.</p>
+<p>We recommend that you not use this license for anything you write.</p>
</dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.cs.utah.edu/~gk/teem/txt/LICENSE.txt";>
-University of Utah Public License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL";>
+ Zope Public License version 1</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>
-The University of Utah Public License is a non-free license
-because it does not allow commercial redistribution. It also purports
-to restrict commercially running the software and even commercially
-giving consultation about it. Those restrictions are probably not
-legally enforceable under US copyright law, but they might be in some
-countries; even asserting them is outrageous.</p>
-<p>
-The use of this license by the University of Utah exemplifies a
-<a href="http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/papers/keptu.html";>dangerous
-trend for universities to restrict knowledge</a> rather than
-contributing it to the public.</p>
-<p>
-If a university tries to impose a license like this on the software
-you are writing, don't give up hope.
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html";>With persistence
-and firmness, and some forethought, it is possible to prevail over
-money-grabbing university administrators.</a></p>
-<p>The earlier you raise the issue, the better.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is a simple, fairly permissive non-copyleft free software
+license with <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>practical
+problems</a> like those of the original BSD license, including
+incompatibility with the <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GNU GPL</a>.</p>
+<p>We urge you not to use the ZPL version 1 for software you write.
+However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been
+released under this license, such as previous versions of Zope.</p>
+<p><a href="#Zope20">Version 2.0 of the Zope Public License</a> is
+GPL-compatible.</p></dd>
+ </dl>
-<dt>eCos Public License, version 1.1</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This was the old license of eCos. It is not a free software
-license, because it requires sending every published modified version
-to a specific initial developer. There are also some other words in
-this license whose meaning we're not sure of that might also be
-problematic.</p>
-<p>
-Today eCos is available under the GNU GPL with additional permission
-for linking with non-free programs.</p>
-</dd>
+<hr />
-<dt>Sun Solaris Source Code (Foundation Release) License, Version 1.1</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is not a free software license. The license prohibits
-redistribution, prohibits commercial use of the software, and can be
-revoked.
-</p></dd>
+<h3><a id="NonFreeSoftwareLicense">Non-Free Software Licenses</a></h3>
+<p><strong>The following licenses <em>do not qualify</em> as <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>free software</a>
+licenses. A non-free license is automatically incompatible with the <a
+href="#GNUGPL">GNU GPL</a>.</strong></p>
+
+<p>Of course, we urge you to avoid using non-free software licenses, and
+to avoid non-free software in general.</p>
+
+<p>There is no way we could list all the known non-free software
+licenses here; after all, every proprietary software company has its
+own. We focus here on licenses that are often mistaken for free
+software licenses but are, in fact, <strong>not</strong> free software
+licenses.</p>
-<dt>YaST License</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is not a free software license. The license prohibits
-distribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software
-to be included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are
-sold by companies and by organizations such as the FSF.</p>
-<p>There may be another problem in section 2a, but a word seems to be
-missing there, so it is hard to be sure what meaning is really
-intended.</p>
-<p>(The YaST software itself no longer uses this nonfree YaST license;
-happily, it is now free software, released under the GNU GPL.)</p>
-</dd>
+<p>We have provided links to these licenses when we can do so without
+violating our general policy: that we do not make links to sites that
+promote, encourage or facilitate the use of non-free software packages.
+The last thing we want to do is give any non-free program some gratis
+publicity that might encourage more people to use it. For the same
+reason, we have avoided naming the programs for which a license is used,
+unless we think that for specific reasons it won't backfire.</p>
+<dl>
<dt>Aladdin Free Public License</dt>
<dd>
<p>Despite its name, this is not a free software license because it
does not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simply
packaging software licensed under it with anything for which a charge
-is made.
-</p></dd>
+is made.</p></dd>
-<dt>Scilab license</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.2.txt";>
+ Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 1.x</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is not a free software license because it does not
-allow commercial distribution of a modified version.
-</p></dd>
+<p>Versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 are <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html";>not free
+software licenses (follow the link for more explanation)</a>. Please
+don't use these licenses, and we urge you to avoid any software that has
+been released under them. <a href="#apsl2">Version 2.0 of the APSL</a>
+is a free software license.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a id="ArtisticLicense">(Original) Artistic License</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too
+vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is
+not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of
+<a href="#PerlLicense">the disjunctive license of Perl</a>.</p>
+<p>The problems are matters of wording, not substance. The revised
+version of the Artistic License (dubbed <a
+href="http://dev.perl.org/rfc/346.html";>Artistic License 2.0</a>) which
+is a free software license, and even compatible with the GNU GPL. This
+license is being considered for use in Perl 6. If you are thinking of
+releasing a program under the Artistic License, please do investigate
+other GPL-compatible, free software licensing options listed here
+first.</p>
+<p>The Artistic License 2.0 is currently in a draft phase with The Perl
+Foundation. FSF is in active negotiations with the Perl Foundation
+regarding the license, and we look forward to a result which will
+benefit all users.</p></dd>
<dt>AT&T Public License</dt>
@@ -1241,11 +994,44 @@
<p></p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.jahia.org/jahia/Jahia/pid/145";>Jahia Community Source
License</a></dt>
+<dt>eCos Public License, version 1.1</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This was the old license of eCos. It is not a free software
+license, because it requires sending every published modified version
+to a specific initial developer. There are also some other words in
+this license whose meaning we're not sure of that might also be
+problematic.</p>
+<p>Today <a href="#eCos20">eCos is available</a> under the GNU GPL with
+additional permission for linking with non-free programs.</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt><a
href="http://www.celepar.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=69";>
+ GPL for Computer Programs of the Public Administration</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>The GPL-PA (whose original name in Portuguese is "Licença Pública
+Geral para Administração Pública") is non-free for several reasons:
+<ul>
+<li>It permits use only in “normal circumstances”.</li>
+<li>It does not allow distribution of source code without binaries.</li>
+<li>Its permissions lapse after 50 years.</li>
+</ul>
+</dd>
+
+<dt><a href="http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php";>
+ Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement</a> (HESSLA)</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is not a free software license, because it <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html";>restricts what jobs
+people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what
+jobs modified versions of the program can do</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a href="http://www.jahia.org/jahia/Jahia/pid/145";>
+ Jahia Community Source License</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>The Jahia Community Source License is not a free software license. Use
-of the source code is limited to research purposes.
-</p></dd>
+of the source code is limited to research purposes.</p></dd>
<dt>License of ksh93</dt>
@@ -1253,136 +1039,227 @@
<p>The license of ksh93 is not a free software license. One reason for
this is that it requires that all changes be sent to the developer. There
may be other problems with the license as well that would make it
-non-free.
-</p></dd>
+non-free.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a
href="http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/l/lha/current/copyright";>
+ License of Lha</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>The lha license must be considered non-free because it is too
+unclear to give clear permissions.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a
href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm";>
+ Microsoft's Shared Source CLI, C#, and Jscript License</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This license does not permit commercial distribution, and only allows
+commercial use under certain circumstances.</p>
+<p>Microsoft has other licenses which it describes as “Shared
+Source”, some of which have different restrictions.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a
href="http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/pdf/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt";>
+ NASA Open Source Agreement</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software
+license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your
+“original creation”. Free software development depends on
+combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit
+this.</p>
+<p>We urge you not to use this license. In addition, if you are a
+United States citizen, please write to NASA and call for the use of a
+truly free software license.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><a href="http://koala.ilog.fr/jackaroo/OPL_1_0.TXT";>
+ Open Public License</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is not a free software license, because it requires sending
+every published modified version to a specific initial developer.
+There are also some other words in this license whose meaning we're
+not sure of that might also be problematic.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt>License of PINE</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>The license of PINE is not a free software license because it mostly
+prohibits the distribution of modified versions. It also restricts the
+media that can be used for <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html";>selling
+copies</a>.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt>Old Plan 9 license</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms such
+as the right to make and use private changes. Of course you should not
+use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been
+released under it. <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html";>A detailed
+discussion of this license is also available</a>.</p>
+<p>In September 2002 it was observed that the published license for
+Plan 9 had been modified, adding more restrictions to it, although
+its date still said 09/20/00. However, a <a href="#lucent102">further
+license change in 2003 made Plan 9 free software</a>.</p></dd>
<dt>License of Qmail</dt>
<dd>
<p>The license of Qmail is not a free software license because it mostly
-prohibits the distribution of modified versions.
-</p></dd>
+prohibits the distribution of modified versions.</p></dd>
-<dt>The license of PINE</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php";>
+ Reciprocal Public License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The license of PINE is not a free software license because it mostly
-prohibits the distribution of modified versions. It also restricts
-the media that can be used for <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html";>
-selling copies</a>.
-</p></dd>
+<p>The Reciprocal Public License is a non-free license because of three
+problems. 1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy.
+2. It requires notification of the original developer for
+publication of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of
+any modified version that an organization uses, even privately.</p></dd>
-<dt><a
href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm";>
-Microsoft's Shared Source CLI, C#, And Jscript License</a></dt>
+<dt>Scilab license</dt>
<dd>
-<p>This license does not permit commercial distribution, and only allows
commercial use under certain circumstances.
-</p>
-<p>
-Microsoft has other licenses which it describes as "Shared Source",
-some of which have different restrictions.
-</p>
-</dd>
+<p>This is not a free software license because it does not
+allow commercial distribution of a modified version.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php";>
-Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement</a> (HESSLA)</dt>
+<dt><a href="http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB/";>
+ SGI Free Software License B, version 1.1</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is not a free software license, because it <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html";>restricts what jobs people can
use the software
-for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of
-the program can do</a>.
-</p></dd>
+<p>The SGI Free Software License B, although its name says "free", is
+not a free software License. It has three major problems. 1. It
+restricts its patent license to unmodified versions of the software.
+2. It terminates if your use of the software infringes copyrights
+or patents which are not SGI's. This is problematic because it gives
+SGI grounds to sue you even when you have done nothing to them.
+3. The license requires you to inform SGI of legal problems with
+the software. This violates your privacy rights, and can conflict with
+professional confidentiality requirements, such as attorney-client
+privilege.</p></dd>
-<dt>The <a href="http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/";>Squeak license</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/";>
+ Squeak license</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>As applied to software, this is not a free software license because
it requires all users in whatever country to obey US export control
laws. As applied to fonts, it also does not permit modification.</p>
-<p>
-In addition, it has a requirement for users to indemnify the developer,
-which is enough to make many users think twice about using it at all.</p>
+<p>In addition, it has a requirement for users to indemnify the
+developer, which is enough to make many users think twice about using it
+at all.</p>
</dd>
-</dl>
+
+<dt><a id="SunCommunitySourceLicense">
+ Sun Community Source License</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms such
+as publication of modified versions. Please don't use this license, and
+we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under
+it.</p></dd>
-<hr />
+<dt>Sun Solaris Source Code (Foundation Release) License, Version 1.1</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is not a free software license. The license prohibits
+redistribution, prohibits commercial use of the software, and can be
+revoked.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a href="http://www.cs.utah.edu/~gk/teem/txt/LICENSE.txt";>
+ University of Utah Public License</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>The University of Utah Public License is a non-free license because
+it does not allow commercial redistribution. It also purports to
+restrict commercially running the software and even commercially giving
+consultation about it. Those restrictions are probably not legally
+enforceable under US copyright law, but they might be in some countries;
+even asserting them is outrageous.</p>
+<p>The use of this license by the University of Utah exemplifies a <a
+href="http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/papers/keptu.html";>dangerous
+trend for universities to restrict knowledge</a> rather than
+contributing it to the public.</p>
+<p>If a university tries to impose a license like this on the software
+you are writing, don't give up hope. <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html";>With persistence
+and firmness, and some forethought, it is possible to prevail over
+money-grabbing university administrators.</a></p>
+<p>The earlier you raise the issue, the better.</p></dd>
-<h2><a id="DocumentationLicenses" href="#TOCDocumentationLicenses">Licenses
For Documentation</a></h2>
- <ul>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents ABOVE TOO!
-->
-<!-- But change here the -->
-<!-- id="TOC..." -->
-<!-- to id="TOC2..." -->
-<!-- so the back link goes to the full Table of Contents. -->
- <li><a href="#FreeDocumentationLicenses"
- id="TOC2FreeDocumentationLicenses">Free Documentation Licenses</a></li>
- <li><a href="#NonFreeDocumentationLicenses"
- id="TOC2NonFreeDocumentationLicenses">Non-Free Documentation
Licenses</a></li>
-<!-- PLEASE UPDATE THE almost IDENTICAL 2nd Level Table of Contents ABOVE TOO!
-->
-<!-- But change here the -->
-<!-- id="TOC..." -->
-<!-- to id="TOC2..." -->
-<!-- so the back link goes to the full Table of Contents. -->
- </ul>
+<dt>YaST License</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is not a free software license. The license prohibits
+distribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to
+be included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold
+by companies and by organizations such as the FSF.</p>
+<p>There may be another problem in section 2a, but a word seems to be
+missing there, so it is hard to be sure what meaning is really
+intended.</p>
+<p>(The YaST software itself no longer uses this nonfree YaST license;
+happily, it is now free software, released under the GNU GPL.)</p>
+</dd>
+
+
+</dl>
<hr />
-<p> <strong>The following licenses do qualify as
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html";>free documentation</a>
licenses:</strong></p>
-<h3><a id="FreeDocumentationLicenses"
-href="#TOCFreeDocumentationLicenses">Free Documentation Licenses</a></h3>
+<h2><a id="DocumentationLicenses">Licenses For Documentation</a></h2>
+<h3><a id="FreeDocumentationLicenses">Free Documentation Licenses</a></h3>
+<p><strong>The following licenses qualify as <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html";>free
+documentation</a> licenses.</strong></p>
<dl>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html";>GNU Free Documentation
License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html";>
+ GNU Free Documentation License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a license intended for use on copylefted free
-documentation. We plan to adopt it for all GNU manuals. It is also
-suitable for other kinds of useful works (such as textbooks and
-dictionaries, for instance). Its applicability is not limited to
-textual works ("books").
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a license intended for use on copylefted free documentation.
+We plan to adopt it for all GNU manuals. It is also suitable for other
+kinds of useful works (such as textbooks and dictionaries, for
+instance). Its applicability is not limited to textual works
+(“books”).</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html";>
-FreeBSD Documentation License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/cdl/";>
+ Apple's Common Documentation License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft Free Documentation license that is
-compatible with the GNU FDL.
-</p></dd>
+<p>This is a Free Documentation license that is incompatible with the
+GNU FDL. It is incompatible because Section (2c) says “You
+add no other terms or conditions to those of this License”, and
+the GNU FDL has additional terms not accounted for in the Common
+Documentation License.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/cdl/";>
-Apple's Common Documentation License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html";>
+ FreeBSD Documentation License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>This is a Free Documentation license that is incompatible with the GNU
-FDL. It is incompatible because Section (2c) says "You add no other terms
-or conditions to those of this License", and the GNU FDL has additional
-terms not accounted for in the Common Documentation License.
+<p>This is a permissive non-copyleft free documentation license that is
+compatible with the GNU FDL.
</p></dd>
<dt><a id="RealOPL" href="http://opencontent.org/openpub/";>
-Open Publication License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
+ Open Publication License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This license <strong>can</strong> be used as a free documentation
license. It is a copyleft free documentation license
-<strong>provided</strong> the copyright holder does not exercise any of the
-"LICENSE OPTIONS" listed in Section VI of the license. But if either of the
-options is invoked, the license becomes non-free.</p>
+<strong>provided</strong> the copyright holder does not exercise any of
+the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI of the license.
+But if either of the options is invoked, the license becomes
+non-free.</p>
<p>
This creates a practical pitfall in using or recommending this
-license: if you recommend ``Use the Open Publication License, Version
-1.0 but don't enable the options'', it would be easy for the second
+license: if you recommend “Use the Open Publication License, Version
+1.0 but don't enable the options”, it would be easy for the second
half of that recommendation to get forgotten; someone might use the
license with the options, making a manual non-free, and yet think he
or she is following your advice.</p>
@@ -1397,11 +1274,12 @@
GNU Free Documentation License and avoid the risk of leading someone else
astray.</p>
<p>
-Please note that this license is not the same as the <a href="#OCL">Open
-Content License</a>. These two licenses are frequently confused, as the
-Open Content License is often referred to as the "OPL". For clarity, it is
-better not to use the abbreviation ``OPL'' for either license. It is worth
-spelling their names in full to make sure people understand what you say.</p>
+Please note that this license is not the same as the <a
+href="#OCL">Open Content License</a>. These two licenses are frequently
+confused, as the Open Content License is often referred to as the
+“OPL”. For clarity, it is better not to use the
+abbreviation “OPL” for either license. It is worth spelling
+their names in full to make sure people understand what you say.</p
</dd>
</dl>
@@ -1410,30 +1288,30 @@
<hr />
-<h3><a id="NonFreeDocumentationLicenses"
-href="#TOCNonFreeDocumentationLicenses">Non-Free Documentation
Licenses</a></h3>
+<h3><a id="NonFreeDocumentationLicenses">Non-Free Documentation Licenses</a>
+</h3>
<p><strong>The following licenses <em>do not qualify</em>
-as free documentation licenses: </strong></p>
+as free documentation licenses:</strong></p>
<dl>
-
<dt><a id="OCL" href="http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml";>
-Open Content License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
+ Open Content License, Version 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on
charging money for copies. We recommend you do not use this license.</p>
-<p>
-Please note that this license is not the same as the <a href="#RealOPL">Open
-Publication License</a>. The practice of abbreviating ``Open Content
-License'' as ``OPL'' leads to confusion between them. For clarity, it is
-better not to use the abbreviation ``OPL'' for either license. It is worth
-spelling their names in full to make sure people understand what you say.</p>
-</dd>
+<p>Please note that this license is not the same as the <a
+href="#RealOPL">Open Publication License</a>. The practice of
+abbreviating “Open Content License” as “OPL”
+leads to confusion between them. For clarity, it is better not to use
+the abbreviation “OPL” for either license. It is worth
+spelling their names in full to make sure people understand what you
+say.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://dmoz.org/license.html";>Open Directory License (aka
dmoz.org License)</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://dmoz.org/license.html";>
+ Open Directory License (aka dmoz.org License)</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is not a free documentation license. The primary problems are that
your right to redistribute any given version is not permanent and that it
@@ -1446,95 +1324,83 @@
<hr />
-<h3><a id="OtherLicenses" href="#TOCOtherLicenses">Licenses For Works Besides
Software and Documentation</a></h3>
+<h3><a id="OtherLicenses">Licenses for Works Besides Software and
+ Documentation</a></h3>
<dl>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html";>GNU General Public
License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html";>
+ GNU General Public License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The GNU GPL <strong>can</strong> be used for general data which is not
-software, as long as one can determine what the definition of "source
-code" refers to in the particular case. As it turns out, the DSL (see
-below) also requires that you determine what the "source code" is,
-using approximately the same definition that the GPL uses.
-</p></dd>
+<p>The GNU GPL <strong>can</strong> be used for general data which is
+not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of
+“source code” refers to in the particular case. As it turns
+out, the DSL (see below) also requires that you determine what the
+“source code” is, using approximately the same definition
+that the GPL uses.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html";>GNU Free Documentation
License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html";>
+ GNU Free Documentation License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The GNU FDL is recommended for textbooks and teaching
-materials for all topics. ("Documentation" simply means textbooks and
+<p>The GNU FDL is recommended for textbooks and teaching materials for
+all topics. (“Documentation” simply means textbooks and
other teaching materials for using equipment or software.) We also
recommend the GNU FDL for dictionaries, encyclopedias, and any other
-works that provide information for practical use.
-</p></dd>
+works that provide information for practical use.</p></dd>
+
+
+<dt><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode";>
+ Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is a non-copyleft free license for artistic works and entertainment
+works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is
+incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.</p>
+<p>There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons
+licenses grant. Therefore, to say that a work “uses a Creative
+Commons license” is to leave all important questions about the
+work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement, please
+suggest making it clearer. And if someone proposes to “use a
+Creative Commons license” for a certain work, it is vital to ask
+immediately “Which one?”</p>
+<p>We recommend using the <a
+href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html";>Free Art License</a>,
+rather than this one, so as to avoid augmenting the problem caused by
+the vagueness of “a Creative Commons license”.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode";>
+ Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works and
+entertainment works. Please don't use it for software or
+documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the
+GNU FDL.</p>
+<p>Please see additional comments about Creative Commons licenses
+just above.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html";>Design Science
License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html";>
+ Design Science License (DSL)</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a free and copyleft license meant for general data.
Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is
incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL; however, it is
-fine to use for other kinds of data.
-</p></dd>
+fine to use for other kinds of data.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html";>Free Art License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html";>
+ Free Art License</a></dt>
<dd>
<p>This is a free and copyleft license meant for artistic works. It
permits commercial distribution, but any larger work including the
copylefted work must be free. Please don't use it for software or
documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the
-GNU FDL.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode";>Creative
Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works and
-entertainment works. Please don't use it for software or
-documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the
-GNU FDL.
-</p>
-<p>
-There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons
-licenses grant. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a Creative
-Commons license" is to leave all important questions about the work's
-licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement, please suggest
-making it clearer. And if someone proposes to "use a Creative Commons
-license" for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately "Which
-one?"</p>
-<p>
-We recommend using
-the <a href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html";> Free Art
-License</a>, rather than this one, so as to avoid augmenting the
-problem caused by the vagueness of "a Creative Commons license".</p>
-</dd>
-
+GNU FDL.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode";>Creative
Commons Attribution 2.0 license</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a non-copyleft free license for artistic works and entertainment
-works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is
-incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
-</p>
-<p>
-There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons
-licenses grant. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a Creative
-Commons license" is to leave all important questions about the work's
-licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement, please suggest
-making it clearer. And if someone proposes to "use a Creative Commons
-license" for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately "Which
-one?"</p>
-<p>
-We recommend using
-the <a href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html";> Free Art
-License</a>, rather than this one, so as to avoid augmenting the
-problem caused by the vagueness of "a Creative Commons license".</p>
-</dd>
</dl>
-<h3><a name="Fonts">Licenses For Fonts</a></h3>
+<h3><a name="Fonts">Licenses for Fonts</a></h3>
<p>Font designs as such are not copyrightable in the United States and
other countries, although (we are told) they are copyrightable in
@@ -1545,33 +1411,34 @@
<dl>
-<dt><a href="http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/non-gnu/chinese-fonts-truetype/LICENSE";>
-Arphic Public License</a></dt>
-<dd>
-<p>This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with the
-GPL. Its normal use is for fonts, and in that use, the
-incompatibility does not cause a problem.
-</p></dd>
-
-<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html";>GNU General Public
License</a></dt>
+<dt><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html";>
+ GNU General Public License</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The GNU GPL <strong>can</strong> be used for fonts. However,
-note that it does not permit embedding the font in a document unless
-that document is also licensed under the GPL. If you want to allow
-this, use the <a
+<p>The GNU GPL <strong>can</strong> be used for fonts. However, note
+that it does not permit embedding the font in a document unless that
+document is also licensed under the GPL. If you want to allow this, use
+the <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException";>font
exception</a>. See also this <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis";>explanatory
essay about the GPL Font Exception</a>.</p></dd>
-<dt><a href="http://scripts.sil.org/OFL";>SIL Open Font License 1.0</a></dt>
+
+<dt><a href="http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/non-gnu/chinese-fonts-truetype/LICENSE";>
+ Arphic Public License</a></dt>
+<dd>
+<p>This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with the
+GPL. Its normal use is for fonts, and in that use, the
+incompatibility does not cause a problem.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><a href="http://scripts.sil.org/OFL";>
+ SIL Open Font License 1.0</a></dt>
<dd>
-<p>The Open Font License is a Free copyleft license for fonts. Its only
+<p>The Open Font License is a free copyleft license for fonts. Its only
unusual requirement is that fonts be distributed with some computer
program, rather than alone. Since a simple Hello World program will
satisfy the requirement, it is harmless. Neither we nor SIL recommend
-the use of this license for anything other than fonts.
-</p></dd>
+the use of this license for anything other than fonts.</p></dd>
</dl>
@@ -1644,7 +1511,8 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.,
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
<br />
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
@@ -1655,7 +1523,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/02/13 17:16:59 $ $Author: karl $
+$Date: 2007/02/15 23:36:46 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>