flâneur

software licenses by AJ.pdf - Google Drive

drive.google.com · 231 words · saved by 1 readers

If you sue someone over patents related to the Apache- licensed software, your patent license under Apache 2.0 may terminate. BSD 3-Clause same as MIT license but with “no endorsement” clause can do anything with the code that MIT allows but you can't say "recommended/supported by xyz", "Built in partnership with" ex numpy obligations same as MIT + no endorsement implifications You cannot say or imply that the original authors endorse your product unless they have given you permission. BSD 2-Clause it's BSD 3 - "no endorsement" clause = MIT gives exact same permission as MIT only difference is in their writing BSD 2-Clause says essentially the same thing, but with wording that originated from the Berkeley Software Distribution project GPL family (especially GPLv2 / GPLv3) a family of copyleft licenses copyleft means "if you distribute a software based on GPL license, you must distribute it under the same license and open source the code" also you can't license the derivative work under

Page 3 of 4 DRM prevention (you can't simply put a lock on the derivative of the software under gpl v3) gpl 3 ex GNU Bash GNU Emacs GNU Core Utilities why linux stick to gpl 2.0? he feels tivoization is okay while stallman doesn't agree LGPL means lesser GPL it's created for the libraries gpl says If you create and distribute a derivative work based on this, you must license the whole derivative work under the GPL and provide the corresponding source code. lgpl say if You can build proprietary software using this library. If you modify the LGPL library itself and distribute…

saved by

related reading