Permissive software license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Copycenter)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:Use American English Script error: No such module "other uses".

A permissive software license, sometimes also called BSD-like or BSD-style license,[1] is a free-software license which instead of copyleft protections, carries only minimal restrictions on how the software can be used, modified, and redistributed, usually including a warranty disclaimer. Examples include the GNU All-permissive License, MIT License, BSD licenses, Apple Public Source License and Apache license. since 2016,Template:Dated maintenance category (articles)Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". the most popular free-software license is the permissive MIT license.[2][3]

Comparison table

Public domain & equivalents Permissive license Copyleft (protective license) Noncommercial license Proprietary license Trade secret
Description Grants all rights Grants use rights, forbids almost nothing (allows proprietization, license compatibility) Grants use rights, forbids proprietization Grants rights for noncommercial use only. May not be combined with copyleft. Traditional use of copyright; no rights need be granted No information made public
Software PD, CC0 BSD, MIT, Apache GPL, AGPL JRL, AFPL proprietary software, no public license private, internal software
Other creative works PD, CC0 CC BY CC BY-SA, Free Art License CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-SA Copyright, no public license unpublished

Example

The following is the full text of the simple GNU All-permissive License:

Template:Quote

Definitions

The Open Source Initiative defines a permissive software license as a "non-copyleft license that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify and redistribute".[4] GitHub's choosealicense website describes the permissive MIT license as "[letting] people do anything they want with your code as long as they provide attribution back to you and don't hold you liable."[5] California Western School of Law's newmediarights.com defined them as follows: "The 'BSD-like' licenses such as the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses are extremely permissive, requiring little more than attributing the original portions of the licensed code to the original developers in your own code and/or documentation."[1]

Comparison to copyleft

Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote".

Copyleft licenses generally require the reciprocal publication of the source code of any modified versions under the original work's copyleft license.[6][7] Permissive licenses, in contrast, do not try to guarantee that modified versions of the software will remain free and publicly available, generally requiring only that the original copyright notice be retained.[1] As a result, derivative works, or future versions, of permissively-licensed software can be released as proprietary software.[8]

Defining how liberal a license is, however, is not something easily quantifiable, and often depends on the goals of the final users. If the latter are developers, for some it might be valuable to have the right to modify and exploit source code written by others and possibly incorporate it into proprietary code and make money with it (and therefore these see permissive licenses as offering them a "right"),[9] while for other developers it might be more valuable to know that nobody will ever capitalize what has mostly been their work (and therefore these see copyleft licenses as offering them a "right"). Furthermore, the final users might not be developers at all, and in this case copyleft licenses offer them the everlasting right to access a software as free software, ensuring that it will never become closed source – while permissive licenses offer no rights at all to non-developer final users, and software released with a permissive license could theoretically become from one day to another a closed source malware without the user even knowing it.

Permissive licenses offer more extensive license compatibility than copyleft licenses, which cannot generally be freely combined and mixed, because their reciprocity requirements conflict with each other.[10][11][12][13][14]

Comparison to public domain

Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote". Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai used the term "public domain" to refer to works that have become widely shared and distributed under permission, rather than work that was deliberately put into the public domain. However, permissive licenses are not actually equivalent to releasing a work into the public domain.

Permissive licenses often do stipulate some limited requirements, such as that the original authors must be credited (attribution). If a work is truly in the public domain, this is usually not legally required, but a United States copyright registration requires disclosing material that has been previously published,[15] and attribution may still be considered an ethical requirement in academia.

Advocates of permissive licenses often recommend against attempting to release software to the public domain, on the grounds that this can be legally problematic in some jurisdictions.[16][17] Public-domain-equivalent licenses are an attempt to solve this problem, providing a fallback permissive license for cases where renunciation of copyright is not legally possible, and sometimes also including a disclaimer of warranties similar to most permissive licenses.

License compatibility

Template:Main article

File:Floss-license-slide-image.svg
License compatibility between common free and open-source software (FOSS) licenses according to David A. Wheeler (2007): the vector arrows denote a one directional compatibility, therefore better compatibility on the left side ("permissive licenses") than on the right side ("copyleft licenses").[18]

In general permissive licenses have good license compatibility with most other software licenses in most situations.[10][11]

Due to their non-restrictiveness, most permissive software licenses are even compatible with copyleft licenses, which are incompatible with most other licenses. Some older permissive licenses, such as the 4-clause BSD license, the PHP License, and the OpenSSL License, have clauses requiring advertising materials to credit the copyright holder, which made them incompatible with copyleft licenses. Popular modern permissive licenses, however, such as the MIT License, the 3-clause BSD license and the zlib license, don't include advertising clauses and are generally compatible with copyleft licenses.

Some licenses do not allow derived works to add a restriction that says a redistributor cannot add more restrictions. Examples include the CDDL and MsPL. However such restrictions also make the license incompatible with permissive free-software licenses.Template:Fact

Reception and adoption

While they have been in use since the mid-1980s,[19] several authors noted an increase in the popularity of permissive licenses during the 2010s.[20][21][22][23]

since 2015,Template:Dated maintenance category (articles)Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". the MIT License, a permissive license, is the most popular free software license, followed by GPLv2.[2][3]

Other terms

Non-copyleft

<templatestyles src="Rquote/styles.css"/><templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

Template:Trim quotes

— Template:Comma separated entries

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

Sometimes the word "permissive" is considered too ambiguous, because all free software licenses are "permissive", in the sense that they all allow to modify and redistribute the source code. In most cases the real opposition is between copyleft licenses and non-copyleft ones, thus some authors prefer to use the term "non-copyleft" instead of "permissive".[25][26][24]

Copycenter

<templatestyles src="Rquote/styles.css"/><templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

Template:Trim quotes

— Template:Comma separated entries

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

Copycenter is a term originally used to explain the modified BSD license, a permissive free-software license. The term was presented by computer scientist and Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) contributor Marshall Kirk McKusick at a BSD conference in 1999. It is a word play on copyright, copyleft and copy center.[27][28]

Pushover license

<templatestyles src="Rquote/styles.css"/><templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

Template:Trim quotes

— Template:Comma separated entries

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

In the Free Software Foundation's guide to license compatibility and relicensing, Richard Stallman defines permissive licenses as "pushover licenses", comparing them to those people who "can't say no", because they are seen as granting a right to "deny freedom to others."[29] The Foundation recommends pushover licenses only for small programs, below 300 lines of code, where "the benefits provided by copyleft are usually too small to justify the inconvenience of making sure a copy of the license always accompanies the software".[30]

See also

Script error: No such module "Portal".

References

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

  1. ↑ a b c Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  4. ↑ permissive on opensource.org "A "permissive" license is simply a non-copyleft open-source licenseTemplate:Sndone that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify and redistribute, but that permits proprietary derivatives."
  5. ↑ Choosing an open-source license doesn't need to be scary on choosealicense.com "Which of the following best describes your situation?Template:SndI want it simple and permissive."
  6. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  8. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  9. ↑ With this in mind, the FreeBSD project advocates permissive licenses for companies and commercial use-cases: they say that they place only "minimal restrictions on future behavior" and argue that copyleft licenses are "legal time-bombs". See Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  10. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  11. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  12. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  13. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  14. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  15. ↑ US Copyright Office Form CO; see also Ashton-Tate v. Fox
  16. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  17. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  18. ↑ The Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS) License Slide by David A. Wheeler on October 4, 2021
  19. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  20. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  21. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  22. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  23. ↑ Does your code need a license? Posted 02 May 2013 by Jason Hibbets "Q: Are there software-development companies favoring a certain open-source license over another? What is the trend in the community? A: We're definitely seeing some trends away from copyleft licenses—mostly towards permissive licenses"
  24. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  25. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  26. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  27. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  28. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  29. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  30. ↑ How to choose a license for your own work – Free Software Foundation

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

External links

Template:Sister project

Script error: No such module "Navbox".

Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Permissive_software_license&oldid=1716346"