Why using this license and this tag? Most countries do not allow their citizens to release their work in the Public domain. But within the restrictions requested by laws, they can express under which conditions they release their work, regarding copying, distribution and modification. Is this license valid? It has been used for publishing some computer softwares.
A license is a contract between the copyright owner and the user of a product. Within the restrictions requested by laws, they are free to agree under which conditions this product can be use.
The last thing we want to do is give any nonfree 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. If source code does not carry a license to give users the four essential freedoms, then unless it has been explicitly and validly placed in the public domain, it is not free software.
Some developers think that code with no license is automatically in the public domain. That is not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightable works are copyrighted by default. This includes programs. Absent a license to grant users freedom, they don't have any. In some countries, users that download code with no license may infringe copyright merely by compiling it or running it. In order for a program to be free, its copyright holders must explicitly grant users the four essential freedoms.
The document with which they do so is called a free software license. This is what free software licenses are for. Some countries allow authors to put code in the public domain, but that requires explicit action. If you wish to do that, the method we recommend is to use CC0 , which also works in other countries by putting on a license that is more or less equivalent to public domain.
However, in most cases it is better to copyleft your code to assure that freedom reaches all users of the code. Code written by employees of the US government is a special exception, since US copyright law explicitly puts that in the public domain; but this does not apply to works that the US pays a company to write.
It also does not apply to other countries, many of which do allow the state to have a copyright on government writings. 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. This is not a free software license. It places restrictions on the freedom to use the program for any purpose.
Please do not use this license for your own software. We will avoid using software under this license, as we do all other nonfree software. The Anti-Capitalist Software License is a nonfree license because it extends the four freedoms only to some kinds of organizations , not to all. Such a restriction in a software license, in the name of any cause whatsoever, imposes too much power over users.
Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under it. Versions 1. Please don't use these licenses, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under them. Version 2. 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 the disjunctive license of Perl.
The Code Project Open License is not a free software license. Section 5. We urge people to reject programs under this license and to develop free replacements. Where a previous version was available as free software, continuing development of that version is an option. This license is nonfree because of Article 3, which arguably includes a requirement not to violate the license of any program that the user runs—even proprietary programs.
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.
This is not a free software license, because it restricts what jobs users can use the software for. That denies freedom 0. This entry was previously listed as the First Do No Harm license. This is not a free software license, because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do.
The Jahia Community Source License is not a free software license. Use of the source code is limited to research purposes. This is the license of the original implementation of the JSON data interchange format. The restriction might be unenforcible, but we cannot presume that. Thus, the license is nonfree. One reason for this is that it required that all changes be sent to the developer. The lha license must be considered nonfree because it is so vague that you cannot be sure what permissions you have.
This license does not permit commercial distribution, and only allows commercial use under certain circumstances. Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this. 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. This is not a free software license, because it requires sending every published modified version to a specific initial developer.
The Peer-Production License is not a free software license because it restricts who can redistribute the program and for what purpose. It also does not give anyone permission to run the program. The PPL has several provisions designed specifically for artistic performances, and we have nothing against its use for art works; however, people reportedly advocate its use for software too.
The PPL should not be used for software, manuals, or other works that ought to be free. The Personal Public License Version 3a is a nonfree license because it denies some users organizations, governments, businesses the four freedoms.
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 selling copies. Please note that a successor to Pine, Alpine, is released under the Apache License, version 2. 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 detailed discussion of this license is also available. However, a further license change in made Plan 9 free software. The Reciprocal Public License is a nonfree license because of three problems.
It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately. This is not a free software license because it does not allow commercial distribution of a modified version. Thankfully, starting from version 5. This is not a free software license because it does not allow commercial redistribution.
In addition, condition 4 substantively restricts the functionality of modified versions. Newer versions Scratch software are distributed under the GNU GPL, but some of those newer version we do not recommend, because they depend on the proprietary software, Adobe Air.
The original Squeak license, as applied to software, 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. 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.
Recent versions of Squeak from 4. This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms such as publication of modified versions. The license prohibits redistribution, prohibits commercial use of the software, and can be revoked. This license requires all recipients to proactively help the licensor enforce its trademarks. This is an unreasonable condition to place on users' rights, so the license is nonfree. However, our judgment of it is not based on that.
This license is nonfree for several reasons. It says that if you don't understand the license you may not use the program. It puts conditions on allowing others to run your copy. There are other points in the license which seem perhaps unacceptable, and in our uncertainty about them we delayed in posting our evaluation. We have posted it now to explain why we do not mourn the demise of Truecrypt. There are free programs that do the same job.
The University of Utah Research Foundation Public License is a nonfree 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.
The use of this license by the University of Utah exemplifies a dangerous trend for universities to restrict knowledge rather than contributing it to the public. If a university tries to impose a license like this on the software you are writing, don't give up hope. With persistence and firmness, and some forethought, it is possible to prevail over money-grabbing university administrators.
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.
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. The following licenses qualify as free documentation licenses. 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. This license can be used as a free documentation license. But if either of the options is invoked, the license becomes nonfree.
Likewise, if you use this license without either of the options to make your manual free, someone else might decide to imitate you, then change his or her mind about the options thinking that that is just a detail; the result would be that his or her manual is nonfree. Thus, while manuals published under this license do qualify as free documentation if neither license option was used, it is better to use the GNU Free Documentation License and avoid the risk of leading someone else astray.
Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Content License. It is worth spelling their names in full to make sure people understand what you say. This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. We recommend you do not use this license. Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Publication License. Thus, we recommend you do not use this license for documentation.
In addition, it has a drawback for any sort of work: when a modified version has many authors, in practice getting permission for commercial use from all of them would become infeasible.
This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on distributing modified versions. We recommend you do not use this license for documentation.
We also recommend the GNU FDL for dictionaries, encyclopedias, and any other works that provide information for practical use. CC0 is a public domain dedication from Creative Commons. A work released under CC0 is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest extent permitted by law. If that is not possible for any reason, CC0 also provides a lax, permissive license as a fallback. If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0.
For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses. Because of this lack of patent grant, we encourage you to be careful about using software under this license; you should first consider whether the licensor might want to sue you for patent infringement. If the developer is refusing users patent licenses, the program is in effect a trap for users and users should avoid the program.
This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and entertainment works, and educational works. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to change the work to state clearly and visibly which of the Creative Commons license it uses. This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works.
Like all CC licenses, it should not be used on software. This is a free and copyleft license meant for general data. This is a free and copyleft license meant for artistic works. It permits commercial distribution, as any free license must. It is a copyleft license because any larger work that includes part of the work you received must be released, as a whole, either under the same license or under a similar license that meets stated criteria.
This is a free and copyleft license meant for data. It makes inconvenient requirements about signing contracts which try to create an effect like copyleft for data that is not copyrightable, so we don't recommend using it; however, there is no reason to avoid using data released this way.
The licenses below apply to an instantiation of a design in a computer file, not the artistic design. See the discussion on the OSI mailing list for some of the immediate issues with the license.
My interpretation:. Personally, I think of the license as having been written in human-readable pseudo-code, without having been properly compiled yet to a given set of legal systems. Doesn't work for Google. Our general philosophy is that we do not allow patches to projects that Google cannot use, either because of the terms of the license or Google policy.
In some cases, you may be able to contribute to these projects via IARC. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.
Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams?
Learn more. What is wrong with the Unlicense? Ask Question. Asked 9 years, 8 months ago. Active 1 year, 3 months ago. Viewed 27k times. Here is the full text of the Unlicense: This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain. Improve this question. Can you link to someone that is discussing the issues that you're concerned about?
There is nothing wrong with this question. It's common knowledge that the concept of public domain doesn't exist in all areas, and this is a valid question about if this particular license is suitable and valid for software projects. This question appears to be off-topic because it is about a license issue. Software licensing is a valid topic for this site. Add a comment.
0コメント