GNU Licenses Using Creative Commons and Open Software Licenses Guides at University of Pittsburgh

Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means thematerial is not copyrighted and no license is needed. It qualifies as a freesoftware license, but it may not be a real copyleft. This license is based on the terms of the Expatand modified BSD licenses.

Licenses For Documentation

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 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.
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.
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.

GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses

Adding that code to the EUPL-covered program providesgrounds to relicense it to the CeCILL v2. To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece ofcode which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find asuitable module already available that way, and add it to theprogram. The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2, because that is listed as oneof the alternative licenses that users may convert to. The only change is thatit explicitly offers the option of designating the GNU GPL version 2or later as a “secondary license” for a certain piece ofcode.

Various Licenses and Comments about Them

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 betory casino bonus Public License, or GNU Affero General Public License. This page is licensed under a CreativeCommons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Using Creative Commons and Open Software Licenses

• The Academic Free License is a free software license, not copyleft, andincompatible with the GNU GPL.
• This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
• This license is also sometimes called the“4-clause BSD license”.
• Additionally, the license excludes certain users—those whose programs or servers are very widely used.
• It has a fewrequirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL, such as strongprohibitions on the use of Apache-related names.
• Newer versions Scratch software are distributed under the GNU GPL,but some of those newer version we do not recommend, because theydepend on the proprietary software, Adobe Air.

(#which-cc)Creative Commons publishes many licenses which arevery different. This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art andentertainment works, and educational works. 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 is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license,compatible with the GNU GPL.
• It is not a free softwarelicense, because it requires sending every published modified versionto a specific initial developer.
• This is a free software license, partially copyleft but notreally.
• It’s also incompatiblewith the GNU GPL, and we urge you not to use the Ms-RL for thisreason.
• This license does not permit commercial distribution, and only allowscommercial use under certain circumstances.
• It is acopyleft license because any larger work that includes part of thework you received must be released, as a whole, either under the samelicense or under a similar license that meets stated criteria.

The copyright notice

Newer versions Scratch software are distributed under the GNU GPL,but some of those newer version we do not recommend, because theydepend on the proprietary software, Adobe Air. In addition, condition 4 substantivelyrestricts the functionality of modified versions. Thankfully, startingfrom version 5.0.0, the Scilab software is free software, releasedunder CeCILL version 2. It requires publication ofany modified version that an organization uses, even privately.

License

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.
However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that havebeen released under this license. This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a fewrequirements (in sections 4 and 5) that render it incompatible withthe GNU GPL. This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with anadvertising clause. Previous versions of the SGI Free Software License B were not freesoftware licenses, despite their name. 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 (see below). Practicallyspeaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as wellhave an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license.
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.