OPEN SOURCE LICENSES

CopyLeft and Permissive

Github, 2022
COPY LEFT GPL, AGPL, LGPL,
EPL & MPL
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
LICENSE (GPL)
GPL License is a free software license that allows software to be modified or
redistributed without any restrictions or compulsory payments for the licensed
code. the GPL license is used by Developers to ensure that their code does not
become proprietary when modified.

It grants open-source permissions for users including:

The right to download and run the software freely
The right to make changes to the software as desired
The right to redistribute copies of the software
The right to modify and distribute copies of new versions of the software

Snyk, 2022
THE AFFERO GPL (AGPL)
The Affero GPL (AGPL) only adds only one clause, but an important one for some
software. Because the GPL license is only triggered when software is distributed,
there is a loophole for software that is made available over the network only, i.e., not
explicitly “distributed”. The AGPL license closes this loophole by including a
remote network interaction clause that triggers the GPL license for any software used
over a network.

Snyk, 2022
THE LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC
LICENSE (LGPL)
The Lesser General Public License (LGPL) provides the same level of terms as
the AGPL and GPL copyleft open source licenses, including preserving copyright
and license notifications. The prime variation is that smaller projects or objects
accessed through larger licensed works do not require distribution of the larger
project. Moreover, the modified source does not have to be distributed under the
same terms that apply to the larger code project.

Snyk, 2022
THE ECLIPSE PUBLIC LICENSE
(EPL)
The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is commonly used for business software.
With EPL, software developed using EPL, non-EPL, and even proprietary
code can be combined and sub-licensed – provided any non-EPL elements
reside independently as separate modules or objects. Modifications can be
made under the EPL license, but they must be released under the same terms.

Snyk, 2022
THE MOZILLA PUBLIC
LICENSE (MPL)
The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is the least restrictive copyleft open source
software license. They make it easy to modify and use their code in closed-source
and/or proprietary software, as long as any code licensed under the MPL is kept in
separate files and these files are distributed with the software. The MPL also
includes patent grants and enforces that copyright notices be retained.

Snyk, 2022
PERMISSIVE The MIT, BSD,

(FREE Apache, and Academic

Free Licenses

LICENSES)
 THE
MIT
LICENS
E
 THE MIT (OR X) LICENSE
The MIT License, one of the simplest licenses, Software
begins as follows:

Ruby on Rails,
The MIT License, which bears the name of the
famous university where it originated, is perhaps the Nim,
most used open source license in the world, perhaps Node.js,
because it is very short and clear and easy to
understand. It allows anyone to do whatever they wish Lua and
with the original code, as long as the original jQuery.
copyright and license notice is included either in the
distributed source code or software. It removes any
liability from authors and does not explicitly contain a
patent grant.
THE MIT (OR X) LICENSE
Two Key Conditions

1. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be

included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

2. A disclaimer (warrantees etc)

 THE
BERKELEY
SOFTWARE
DISTRIBUT
ION
 THE BSD LICENSE
The Berkeley Source Distribution (BSD) License is Software
another permissive open source license that
preserves license notices and copyrights but allows
larger or licensed works to be distributed without BDS UNIX
source code and under different license terms. The FreeBSD,
2- clause BSD License is very similar to the MIT
open source license, while the 3-clause and 4-clause OpenBSD,
BSD licenses add more requirements or restrictions NetBSD and
related to reuse and other terms..
Darwin (the
foundation of
the Mac OS X)
THE BSD LICENSE
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,

this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THE APACHE LICENSE, V1.1
AND V2.0
The Apache License requires license Software
notifications and copyrights on the distributed CalyxOS
code and/or as a notice in the software.
However, derivative works, larger projects, or Babylon.js
modifications are allowed to carry different Apache HTTP
licensing terms when distributed and are not Server
required to provide source code. Apache
licenses contain a patent grant. Apache Tomcat
Redistribution and use in source and binary ASP.NET
forms, with or without modification, are Dbeaver
permitted provided that the following
conditions are met: Apache Hadoop
 THE APACHE LICENSE, V1.1 AND V2.0
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
The copyright notice, the clause introducing the limitations on distribution, and the first
two limitations are substantially identical to those in the BSD License.

3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the
following acknowledgment: “This product includes software developed by the Apache
Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).”
Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such
third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
 THE APACHE LICENSE, V1.1 AND V2.0
The Apache License does not have the cumbersome advertising clause in the rescinded version of the
BSD License, but it requires an acknowledgment of the creator’s contribution to the work being
distributed.

4. The names “Apache” and “Apache Software Foundation” must not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please
contact [email protected].
Like the BSD License, the Apache License contains a non-attribution provision, which protects the
reputation of the creator.

5. Products derived from this software may not be called “Apache” nor may “Apache” appear in their
name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.

Like the provision just discussed, this provision prevents the possibly damaging association of the creator
with derivative works created from the original code.
Finally, the Apache License includes a warranty disclaimer provision substantially similar to those already
described.
 THE ACADEMIC FREE LICENSE
The Academic Free License is substantially similar to the Apache License, v1.1, in
forbidding claims of endorsement by the work’s creator, in requiring attribution to
the creator, in disclaiming warranties, and in permitting distribution of the original
work and derivative works subject only to certain limitations.
The Academic Free License adds four more provisions that are not in the Apache
or BSD Licenses, two of them pertaining to patent law, and two of them
governing choice of law and shifting of attorneys fees.

The intellectual property rights at play in software licenses derive for the most part
from copyright, protecting the expression of particular ideas. The Academic Free
License also addresses the case in which a patent holder chooses to permit the open
source use of that patent.
 APPLICATION AND
PHILOSOPHY
Paragraph 1 of the Academic Free License (v2.0) provides:[3]
1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-
exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following: a) to reproduce the Original
Work in copies; b) to prepare derivative works (“Derivative Works”) based upon the Original
Work; c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public; d) to
perform the Original Work publicly; and e) to display the Original Work publicly.

2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-
exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the
Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, to make, use,
sell and offer for sale the Original Work and Derivative Works.
 APPLICATION AND PHILOSOPHY

All of these licenses have been used in practice, both in licensing software maintained in the
open source community and in providing the basis for commercial applications of programs
derived from open source models. The BSD, MIT, and Apache Licenses, longer established
and more frequently adopted than the Academic Free License, provide the examples described
in this section.

Each of these three licenses has contributed to the widespread commercial adoption of the
programs they license, frequently (though not always) through incorporation into products
distributed under a proprietary license. This is completely consistent with the language and
intent of the licenses. This also reflects their place of origin. For example, both Berkeley Unix
and the X Window System were research projects; the goal of their creators was to explore
technology, to provide a proof-of-concept implementation, and then to permit others to build
on that work. Commercial applications readily followed successful implementations of
research ideas.
APPLICATION AND
PHILOSOPHY
The research-style licenses, like the BSD and MIT Licenses, are ideal for situations
in which you want;
Wide deployment of your ideas and do not care whether this results in open source
software or proprietary software. Because of their openness to commercial use, the
programs they license can be, by many metrics, more influential. Red Hat maintains
a Linux business that makes approximately $90 million in annual revenues, while
Sun Microsystems has revenues of approximately $18 billion.
There are literally billions of dollars of economic activity associated just with the
Internet software stack originally released under the Berkeley License.