We recommend releasing them under the GNU GeneralPublic License, version 3 or later. Circuits are meant for practical use, so circuit designs should carrya free license. Please bespecific about which Creative Commons license is beingused.
Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests…
If you are a university student, we recommend you request thedisclaimer at an early stage inwriting the program to reduce resistance. This is a brief explanation of how to place a program under the GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License, or GNU Affero General Public License. This page is licensed under a CreativeCommons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The copyright disclaimer
- The license of PINE is not a free software license because it mostlyprohibits the distribution of modified versions.
- Please don’t use this license, and we urge you to avoid any softwarethat has been released under it.
- This license is nonfree because of Article 3, which arguablyincludes a requirement not to violate the license of anyprogram that the user runs—even proprietary programs.
- The Affero General Public License is a free software license,copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL.
- This is not a free software license; it lacks essential freedoms suchas publication of modified versions.
- Because of this lack of patent grant, we encourage you to be carefulabout using software under this license; you should first considerwhether the licensor might want to sue you for patent infringement.
This license covers the European Computer Modern Fonts and TextCompanion Fonts, commonly used with LaTeX. However, notethat it does not permit embedding the font in a document unless thatdocument is also licensed under the GPL. As far as we know, an implementation ofa design is always copyrightable.
GNU GPL License Terms
Unfortunately, it has a choice of lawclause which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. Depending onwhether Fraunhofer still has active patents covering the work, thesoftware might be a trap now, or not. In terms of GPL compatibility, the Eclipse Public License version2.0 is essentially equivalent to version 1.0.
Licenses for Works of Practical Use
This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software licensewhich is compatible with the GNU GPL. A larger programusually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissivelicense for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protectsusers from patent treachery. A larger program usuallyought to be copyleft; but if you are set on using a lax permissivelicense for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protectsusers from patent treachery. This is a lax permissive non-copyleft free software license,compatible with the GNU GPL.
- Works that express someone’s opinion—memoirs, editorials, andso on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works forpractical use like software and documentation.
- The licenses below apply to an instantiation of a design in a computerfile, not the artistic design.
- Some people call this license “the MIT No Attribution License,”but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software andall of them contained requirements to preserve copyright notices and licensenotice.
- The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go,though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable.
- For clarity, it is better not to usethe abbreviation “OPL” for either license.
GNU GPLv3 compatibility
To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of codewhich you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable modulealready available that way, and add it to the program. The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2 only and GPLv3 betory casino bonus only, becausethose licenses are listed as two of the alternative licenses that usersmay convert to. However, it givesrecipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selectedlicenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License inparticular—only provide a weaker copyleft.
The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one called“OpenSSL License” and the other being the license of SSLeay. We urge you not to use the older OpenLDAP license for software youwrite. 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. We recommend that you not use thislicense for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improvePlan 9 under this license. For thisreason, it may take some careful checking to produce a version ofLaTeX that is free software. With this facility, therequirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the samerequirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to concludeit makes the program nonfree.
Those restrictions are probably not legallyenforceable under US copyright law, but they might be in some countries;even asserting them is outrageous. It also purports torestrict commercially running the software and even commercially givingconsultation about it. There are other points in the license which seem perhapsunacceptable, and in our uncertainty about them we delayed in postingour evaluation.
