↑ Mark (8 tháng 5 năm 2008). “The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation”. socializedsoftware.com. Truy cập ngày 30 tháng 11 năm 2015. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 58.69% GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 11.39% Artistic License (Perl) 7.46% BSD License 6.50% Apache License 2.0 2.92% MIT License 2.58% GNU General Public Liense (GPL) 3.0 1.64% Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1 1.37% Common Public License 0.83% zlib/lippng License 0.64%
↑ “SourceForge.net: Software Map”. Dwheeler.com. Truy cập ngày 17 tháng 11 năm 2008. License -> OSI: […] GNU General Public License (GPL) (32641 projects), GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (4889 projects of 45727, 82.1%)
↑ Mark (ngày 8 tháng 5 năm 2008). “The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation”. socializedsoftware.com. Truy cập ngày 30 tháng 11 năm 2015. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 58.69% GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 11.39% Artistic License (Perl) 7.46% BSD License 6.50% Apache License 2.0 2.92% MIT License 2.58% GNU General Public Liense (GPL) 3.0 1.64% Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1 1.37% Common Public License 0.83% zlib/lippng License 0.64%
↑ “SourceForge.net: Software Map”. Dwheeler.com. Truy cập ngày 17 tháng 11 năm 2008. License -> OSI: […] GNU General Public License (GPL) (32641 projects), GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (4889 projects of 45727, 82.1%)
↑ Kelty, Christpher M. (2008). “The Cultural Significance of free Software - Two Bits” (PDF). Duke University press - durham and london. tr. 99. Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial, avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software, and so on. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement.
↑ Kelty, Christpher M. (2008). “The Cultural Significance of free Software - Two Bits” (PDF). Duke University press - durham and london. tr. 100. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement. The event that precipitated this attempted semantic coup d’état was the release of the source code for Netscape’s Communicator Web browser. It’s tough to overestimate the importance of Netscape to the fortunes of Free Software. […] But Netscape is far more famous among geeks for giving away something else, in 1998: the source code to Netscape Communicator (née Navigator).
↑ Bernstein, Daniel J. (2004). “Placing documents into the public domain”. Most rights can be voluntarily abandoned ("waived") by the owner of the rights. Legislators can go to extra effort to create rights that can't be abandoned, but usually they don't do this. In particular, you can voluntarily abandon your United States copyrights: "It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960)."
↑ Lawrence Rosen (ngày 8 tháng 3 năm 2012). “(License-review) (License-discuss) CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, (was: MXM compared to CC0)”. opensource.org. The case you referenced in your email, Hampton v. Paramount Pictures, 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. Cal. 1960), stands for the proposition that, at least in the Ninth Circuit, a person can indeed abandon his copyrights (counter to what I wrote in my article) -- but it takes the equivalent of a manifest license to do so.:-)... For the record, I have already voted +1 to approve the CC0 public domain dedication and fallback license as OSD compliant. I admit that I have argued for years against the "public domain" as an open source license, but in retrospect, considering the minimal risk to developers and users relying on such software and the evident popularity of that "license", I changed my mind. One can't stand in the way of a fire hose of free public domain software, even if it doesn't come with a better FOSS license that I trust more.
↑ Mark (ngày 8 tháng 5 năm 2008). “The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation”. socializedsoftware.com. Truy cập ngày 30 tháng 11 năm 2015. Currently the decision to move from GPL v2 to GPL v3 is being hotly debated by many open source projects. According to Palamida, a provider of IP compliance software, there have been roughly 2489 open source projects that have moved from GPLv2 to later versions.
↑ “Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?”. gnu.org. Truy cập ngày 3 tháng 6 năm 2014. No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL 'version 2 or later,' that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
↑ Kerner, Sean Michael (ngày 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.
1 2 Byfield, Bruce (ngày 22 tháng 11 năm 2011). “7 Reasons Why Free Software Is Losing Influence: Page 2”. Datamation.com. Truy cập ngày 23 tháng 8 năm 2013. At the time, the decision seemed sensible in the face of a deadlock. But now, GPLv2 is used for 42.5% of free software, and GPLv3 for less than 6.5%, according to Black Duck Software.
↑ corbet (ngày 1 tháng 10 năm 2006). “Busy busy busybox”. lwn.net. Truy cập ngày 21 tháng 11 năm 2015. Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. […] The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case.
↑ Landley, Rob (ngày 9 tháng 9 năm 2006). “Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun...”. lwn.net. Truy cập ngày 21 tháng 11 năm 2015. Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.
↑ Prokoudine, Alexandre (ngày 26 tháng 1 năm 2012). “What's up with DWG adoption in free software?”. libregraphicsworld.org. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 9 tháng 11 năm 2016. Truy cập ngày 5 tháng 12 năm 2015. Blender is also still 'GPLv2 or later'. For the time being we stick to that, moving to GPL 3 has no evident benefits I know of.
↑ Denis-Courmont, Rémi. “VLC media player to remain under GNU GPL version 2”. videolan.org. Truy cập ngày 21 tháng 11 năm 2015. In 2001, VLC was released under the OSI-approved GNU General Public version 2, with the commonly-offered option to use 'any later version' thereof (though there was not any such later version at the time). Following the release by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) of the new version 3 of its GNU General Public License (GPL) on the 29th of June 2007, contributors to the VLC media player, and other software projects hosted at videolan.org, debated the possibility of updating the licensing terms for future version of the VLC media player and other hosted projects, to version 3 of the GPL.... There is strong concern that these new additional requirements might not match the industrial and economic reality of our time, especially in the market of consumer electronics. It is our belief that changing our licensing terms to GPL version 3 would currently not be in the best interest of our community as a whole. Consequently, we plan to keep distributing future versions of VLC media player under the terms of the GPL version 2.
↑ “Top 20 licenses”. Black Duck Software. Ngày 19 tháng 11 năm 2015. Truy cập ngày 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%
↑ Balter, Ben (ngày 9 tháng 3 năm 2015). “Open source license usage on GitHub.com”. github.com. Truy cập ngày 21 tháng 11 năm 2015. 1 MIT 44.69%, 2 Other 15.68%, 3 GPLv2 12.96%, 4 Apache 11.19%, 5 GPLv3 8.88%, 6 BSD 3-clause 4.53%, 7 Unlicense 1.87%, 8 BSD 2-clause 1.70%, 9 LGPLv3 1.30%, 10 AGPLv3 1.05%
↑ Anwesha Das (ngày 22 tháng 6 năm 2016). “Software Licenses in Fedora Ecosystem”. anweshadas.in. Truy cập ngày 27 tháng 6 năm 2016. From the above chart it is clear that the GPL family is the highest used (I had miscalculated it as MIT before).The other major licenses are MIT, BSD, the LGPL family, Artistic (for Perl packages), LPPL (foe texlive packages), ASL.
↑ LAURENT, Philippe (24 tháng 9 năm 2008). “The GPLv3 and compatibility issues” (PDF). European Open source Lawyers Event 2008. University of Namur – Belgium. tr. 7. Bản gốc (pdf) lưu trữ ngày 4 tháng 3 năm 2016. Truy cập ngày 30 tháng 5 năm 2015. Copyleft is the main source of compatibility problems.
↑ Apache foundation (30 tháng 5 năm 2015). “GPL compatibility”. Truy cập ngày 30 tháng 5 năm 2015. Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are incompatible in one direction only, and it is a result of ASF's licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors' interpretation of copyright law.
↑ Hanwell, Marcus D. (28 tháng 1 năm 2014). “Should I use a permissive license? Copyleft? Or something in the middle?”. opensource.com. Truy cập ngày 30 tháng 5 năm 2015. Permissive licensing simplifies things One reason the business world, and more and more developers […], favor permissive licenses is in the simplicity of reuse. The license usually only pertains to the source code that is licensed and makes no attempt to infer any conditions upon any other component, and because of this there is no need to define what constitutes a derived work. I have also never seen a license compatibility chart for permissive licenses; it seems that they are all compatible.
↑ “Licence Compatibility and Interoperability”. Open-Source Software - Develop, share, and reuse open source software for public administrations. joinup.ec.europa.eu. Truy cập ngày 30 tháng 5 năm 2015. The licences for distributing free or open source software (FOSS) are divided in two families: permissive and copyleft. Permissive licences (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache, Zope) are generally compatible and interoperable with most other licences, tolerating to merge, combine or improve the covered code and to re-distribute it under many licences (including non-free or 'proprietary').
↑ “Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?”. gnu.org. Truy cập ngày 3 tháng 6 năm 2014. No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL 'version 2 or later,' that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
↑ Landley, Rob. “CELF 2013 Toybox talk”. landley.net. Truy cập ngày 21 tháng 8 năm 2013. GPLv3 broke "the" GPL into incompatible forks that can't share code.
↑ “Top 20 licenses”. Black Duck Software. Ngày 19 tháng 11 năm 2015. Truy cập ngày 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%
↑ Balter, Ben (9 tháng 3 năm 2015). “Open source license usage on GitHub.com”. github.com. Truy cập ngày 21 tháng 11 năm 2015. 1 MIT 44.69%, 2 Other 15.68%, 3 GPLv2 12.96%, 4 Apache 11.19%, 5 GPLv3 8.88%, 6 BSD 3-clause 4.53%, 7 Unlicense 1.87%, 8 BSD 2-clause 1.70%, 9 LGPLv3 1.30%, 10 AGPLv3 1.05%
↑ Anwesha Das (ngày 22 tháng 6 năm 2016). “Software Licenses in Fedora Ecosystem”. anweshadas.in. Truy cập ngày 27 tháng 6 năm 2016. From the above chart it is clear that the GPL family is the highest used (I had miscalculated it as MIT before).The other major licenses are MIT, BSD, the LGPL family, Artistic (for Perl packages), LPPL (foe texlive packages), ASL.
