العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolLICENSE COMPATIBILITY
Licences of software packages containing contradictory requirements, render it impossible to combine source code from such packages in order to create new software packages.[1]
For example, if one licence says "''modified versions must mention the developers in any advertising materials''", and another licence says "''modified versions cannot contain additional attribution requirements''", then, if someone combined a software package which uses one licence with a software package which uses the other, it would be impossible to distribute the combination because the two requirements cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. Thus, these two packages would be licence-incompatible.[2]
Not all licenses approved by OSI or by the Free Software Foundation are compatible with each other, thus not all the code under OSI or FSF approved licenses can be mixed. For example code under Mozilla Public License can't be mixed with code under GNU General Public License (both licenses are OSI and FSF approved).
Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, the BSD license (in its current 3-clause form), and the LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole). However, some free/open source software licenses are not GPL-compatible. Many have strongly advocated that free/open source software developers use only GPL-compatible licenses, because doing otherwise makes it difficult to reuse software in larger wholes[3].
Also see the list of FSF approved software licenses for examples of compatible and incompatible licenses.
License proliferation
1. http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245.html
2. Stallman explains licence compatibility while discussing GPLv3
3. http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
For example, if one licence says "''modified versions must mention the developers in any advertising materials''", and another licence says "''modified versions cannot contain additional attribution requirements''", then, if someone combined a software package which uses one licence with a software package which uses the other, it would be impossible to distribute the combination because the two requirements cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. Thus, these two packages would be licence-incompatible.[2]
Not all licenses approved by OSI or by the Free Software Foundation are compatible with each other, thus not all the code under OSI or FSF approved licenses can be mixed. For example code under Mozilla Public License can't be mixed with code under GNU General Public License (both licenses are OSI and FSF approved).
| Contents |
| GPL Compatibility |
| See also |
| References |
GPL Compatibility
Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, the BSD license (in its current 3-clause form), and the LGPL, are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole). However, some free/open source software licenses are not GPL-compatible. Many have strongly advocated that free/open source software developers use only GPL-compatible licenses, because doing otherwise makes it difficult to reuse software in larger wholes[3].
Also see the list of FSF approved software licenses for examples of compatible and incompatible licenses.
See also
License proliferation
References
1. http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245.html
2. Stallman explains licence compatibility while discussing GPLv3
3. http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
