Talk:List of software licenses

Untitled

I question whether it is appropriate to distinguish "GPL-compatible" from "non-GPL compatible" here as this calls for a legal conclusion to be made. Kurt 17:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't get this FSF/OSI "approval" bit. While certainly there are OSI-certified open-source licenses, a license need not be OSI-certified (or approved) to be considered an "open source" license. Likewise, for free software. It would be better to say that OSI offers a definition for the term "open source" and a certification program and give a list of OSI-certified licenses. Likewise, FSF offers a definition of the term "free software" and makes statements as to what licenses it considers to be consistent with that definition. Here we can offer there definition and a list of licenses the FSF considers to be consistent that that definition.

We should be careful to distinguish their opinions from fact. In the OSI-certified case, this is a verifiable fact. In the FSF-opinion case, their opinion is published and hence verifiable. However, we need to careful not to word the article so that their opinion appears as our opinion.

We should also note that the these definitions are not accepted and/or adhered to by all in the community. For instance, some regard any publicably viewable source as being "open source" regardless of the restrictions placed upon the viewed copied. 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Floatware

Browsing the web I came across this Floatware License I am wondering how to categorise this, or how to include it in the list of licenses? Thanks

Neutrality

I've placed the NPOV tag on the article because I see no reason why licenses should be categorized according to their compatiblity with the GPL. Such categorization implies that the GPL is more important than the many thousands of other licenses out there. --Android Mouse 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way we could organize them? i.e., "derivatives must be under same license"? Even so, the GPL is a major, if not the most well known, open source license. OSborn^arf 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definitely -for one thing, licenses for source should be clearly differentiated from End-user licence. For example, Symbolics and other major software companies use to reveal source code with "end-users" as a matter of convenience, but since then licenses have evolved, and PC software changed licensing profoundly. I think historical precedent should be considered. Public Domain might also be pertinent here. Cuvtixo 12:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the section on free software licences is broken down based on GPL-compatibility. 55-70% of all free software is GPL licensed (depending on how the measurement is done), so yes, the GPL is on a different scale in terms of importance when compared with the many thousands of licences out there, and being compatible with it is very important. Here's an essay I can well recommend: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html --Gronky 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't dispute that the GPL is very widespread. But I don't understand why being compatible with it is very important. Does that imply that the GPL is good or desirable?Jacksheriff 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being compatible with GPL is important if one wants to mix GPL'ed and non-GPL'ed sources in one project. The non-compatibility with GPL may even force you to favor specific technical design decisions (e.g. to use client/server instead of linked library). And since GPL is, as mentioned above, very widespread, having information on GPL compatibility in Wikipedia is very useful. There is a good chance that a library or application that one wants to reuse for an own project is GPL'ed or LGPL'ed, and Wikipedia would allow to check for compatibility.

Whether GPL itself is good or desirable is a matter of taste and personal view, but classifying licenses based on GPL compatibility has nothing to do with this view. I assume that it is absolutely neutral to discuss and tabulate GPL compatibility, and it would be violation of neutrality to remove this useful information just because it discusses GPL. I guess the issue would not have been raised if the discussion were about MIT- or BSD-license compatibility (which could also be discussed in the article). Regards, Saulius Gražulis (grazulis(commercial at)akl . lt) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.34.231 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than sorting the licenses based on GPL compatibility, I think that a better way to divide them is separing "copyleft"/"share alike" licenses (such as GPL) from permissive ones. A second divison could be between that allow commercial usage of the licensed software and those who don't. Regarding GPL compatibility I think that a note should suffice, while the list of compatible license would find a better place to exist in the GPL own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.23.132 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article still using GPL 2 as the standard of comparison, when the current GPL is GPL 3.The Apache License is compatible with GPL 3, and I',m sure there are several other differences as well. Misty Willows 07:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software licensing?

This article reads "List of software licenses".

I don't know, whether it pertains to "software licensing" or not: as (end) user - be it private or non private ... -> enterprise etc. - what might interest one most is: is there no fee to pay or is there - which might be different, whether the software is used in private, or in enterprise ... public environment etc.

The other (/another?) point of view might be the one of a developer: whether the source is closed, open, reusable, or not reusable, changeable, etc.

Is it possible to have such ... list of "forms of licensing" information in Wikipedia ... is it already somewhere - more detailed/specific than what is in here; if yes -> where? --Alien4 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]