↑ “License information”. The Debian Project. Software in the Public Interest (xuất bản 12 July 2017). 1997–2017. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. Truy cập ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. ... This page presents the opinion of some debian-legal contributors on how certain licenses follow the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). ... Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
...
Expat/MIT-style licenses
...
1 2 “Various Licenses and Comments about Them”. The GNU Project. Free Software Foundation (xuất bản 4 April 2017). 2014–2017. GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. Truy cập ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. ... This is the latest version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license. ... Please note that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 by itself. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. ... Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |df= (trợ giúp)
1 2 “Various Licenses and Comments about Them”. The GNU Project. Free Software Foundation (xuất bản 4 April 2017). 2014–2017. GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. Truy cập ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. ... This is the previous version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license. ... Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. ...
↑ “Licenses by Name”. Open Source Initiative. 13 tháng 4 năm 2020. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. Truy cập ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2017. ... The following licenses have been approved by the OSI. ...
1 2 “Top 20 licenses”. Black Duck Software. 19 tháng 11 năm 2015. 1. MIT license 24%, 2. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 23%, 3. Apache License 16%, 4. GNU General Public License (GPL) 3.0 9%, 5. BSD License 2.0 (3-clause, New or Revised) License 6%, 6. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 5%, 7. Artistic License (Perl) 4%, 8. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 2%, 9. Microsoft Public License 2%, 10. Eclipse Public License (EPL) 2%
↑ License proliferation: a naive quantitative analysis on lwn.net Walter van Holst is a legal consultant at the Dutch IT consulting company mitopics. ... Walter instead chose to use data from a software index, namely Freecode ... Walter's 2009 data set consisted of 38,674 projects ... The final column in the table shows the number of projects licensed under "any version of the GPL". In addition, Walter presented pie charts that showed the proportion of projects under various common licenses. Notable in those data sets was that, whereas in 2009 the proportion of projects licensed GPLv2-only and GPLv3 was respectively 3% and 2%, by 2013, those numbers had risen to 7% and 5%.
↑ “Why the GPL rocketed Linux to success”. So while the BSDs have lost energy every time a company gets involved, the GPL'ed programs gain every time a company gets involved.
↑ Torvalds, Linus. “COPYING”. kernel.org. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
↑ Linus Torvalds (8 tháng 9 năm 2000). “Linux-2.4.0-test8”. lkml.iu.edu. The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. This should not come as any surprise, as that's the same license that has been there since 0.12 or so, but I thought I'd make that explicit
1 2 James E.J. Bottomley; Mauro Carvalho Chehab; Thomas Gleixner; Christoph Hellwig; Dave Jones; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Tony Luck; Andrew Morton; Trond Myklebust; David Woodhouse (15 tháng 9 năm 2006). “Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 - The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3”. LWN.net. Truy cập ngày 11 tháng 3 năm 2015. The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve. However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the current FSF draft: 5.1 DRM Clauses ... 5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause ... 5.3 Patents Provisions ... since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely.
↑ Petreley, Nicholas (27 tháng 9 năm 2006). “A fight against evil or a fight for attention?”. linuxjournal.com. Truy cập ngày 11 tháng 3 năm 2015. Second, the war between Linus Torvalds and other Kernel developers and the Free Software Foundation over GPLv3 is continuing, with Torvalds saying he's fed up with the FSF.
1 2 Torvalds, Linus. “COPYING”. kernel.org. Truy cập ngày 13 tháng 8 năm 2013. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
↑ Kerner, Sean Michael (8 tháng 1 năm 2008). “Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2”. internetnews.com. Truy cập ngày 12 tháng 2 năm 2015. In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is.
↑ “GPL 3 Overview”. Tech LawForum. 29 tháng 6 năm 2007. Truy cập ngày 2 tháng 9 năm 2013.
