Comparison and differentiation of important open source agreements

1.BSD Open Source Agreement ( Original BSD License,FreeBSD License,Original BSD License)

     The BSD Open source agreement is an agreement that gives users a great deal of freedom. Basically the user can "do whatever", can be free to use, modify the source code, you can also use the modified code as open source or proprietary software re-release. But the premise of "Do what you Want" when you publish code that uses the BSD protocol, or if you develop your own product two times based on the BSD protocol code, you need to meet three conditions(2-clause does not carry the third article ):

1>. If the re-published product contains source code, it must be in the source code with the BSD protocol in the original code.

2.>. If you re-publish only binary class libraries/software, you need to include the BSD protocol in your original code in the class library/software documentation and copyright notice.

3>. the author/organization name of the open source code and the name of the original product may not be used for marketing.

Important: Commercial software can be used, or code that uses the BSD protocol can be modified.

BSD code encourages code sharing, but requires respect for the copyright of the author of the Code. BSD is a friendly agreement for business integration because it allows the user to modify and republish the code, and also allows the use or development of commercial software to be published and marketed on BSD code. And a lot of companies in the selection of open source products are preferred BSD protocol, because they can completely control these third-party code, when necessary can be modified or two times development.

2.Apache Licence 2.0 (Apache License, Version 2.0,Apache License, Version 1.1,Apache License, Version 1.0)

Apache licence is the protocol used by the famous non-profit open source organization Apache. The agreement is similar to BSD, encouraging code sharing and respecting the authorship of the original author, as well as allowing the code to be modified and republished (as open source or commercial software). The conditions that need to be met are similar to BSD:

1>. need to give code to users a copy of Apache Licence ;

2>. If you modify the code, the files that need to be modified are described in ;

3>. In the extended code (modified and in code derived from the source code) need to have the original code of the Agreement, trademarks, patent statements and other original author rules need to include the description ;

4. > If a re-released product contains a notice file, the Apache Licence is required in the notice file. You can add your own permission to the notice, but you may not be able to make changes to Apache licence.

Apache licence is also a friendly license for commercial applications. Users can also modify the code as needed to meet their needs and publish/sell as open source or commercial products.

3.GPL ( GNU general public License )

The starting point of the GPL is the code of open source/free use and citation/modification/derivative code of Open source/free use, but does not allow the modification and derivative of the code to be released and marketed as closed source commercial software.

The GPL is "contagious" and as long as it is used in a software ("Use" refers to a class library reference, modified code or derivative code) of the GPL-licensed product, the SOFTWARE product must also be under the GPL, both open source and free.

GPL restrictions on commercial release (from the Java Line of Sight Forum Robbin):

"The GPL is copyright to the software source code, not to the software-compiled binary version. You have the right to obtain the source code for the software free of charge, but you do not have the right to obtain the software's binary release for free. The only limitation of GP to a software release is that your distribution must be provided with the full source code.

    

The main content of the GPL agreement is that the SOFTWARE product must also be licensed under the GPL, both open source and free, as long as it is used in a software ("Use" refers to a class library reference, modified code or derivative code) of the GPL-based product. This is known as "contagious". GPL products are used as a standalone product without any problems and can also enjoy the benefits of free. since the GPL is strictly required for software products that use the GPL class library, it is not appropriate for an open source code that uses the GPL agreement to use a business software or a department that has confidentiality requirements for the code to integrate/adopt as the basis for a class library and two development.

Other details, such as Bsd/apache, need to be accompanied by the GPL and other similar issues.

The following rules apply to the use of the GPL agreement:

1>. Ensure that the software is published in open source form from start to finish, protecting development results from theft for commercial sale. Any set of software, provided that the source of the third-party software protected by the GPL is used and published to non-developers, the software itself automatically becomes a GPL-protected and constrained entity. In other words, it must open the source code at this time.

2>. The GPL is generally a left-hand copyright (Copyleft, or translated as "anti-copyright", "copyright belongs to the left", "copyright is not", "version of the responsibility", etc.) embodiment. You can get rid of all the original copyright information, as long as you keep open source, and with the source code, binary plate with the GPL license, so that posterity can be very clear about this software licensing information. The essence of the GPL is that, as long as the software in the case of full open source, as far as possible to allow users to free play space, so that the software to achieve faster and better development.

3> Regardless of the form in which the software is published, the source code must be attached. For example, to provide a download on the Web, you must download the same page in the binary version (if any), providing a clear link to the source code download. If you publish as a disc, you must also attach a CD-ROM of the source file.

4> a company or individual that develops or maintains software that complies with the GPL may charge a service fee to the user. But it is an old saying-the full source code of the software must be provided free of charge, and the source code should not be bundled with the service or bundled in any disguised form.

Because the GPL requires software products that use the GPL class library to use the GPL, commercial software is not suitable for open source code that uses the GPL protocol.

Important: Commercial software cannot use the GPL protocol code.

4.LGPL ( GNU Lesser general public License )

LGPL is a GPL-open source protocol designed primarily for use in class libraries. And the GPL requires that any software that uses/modifies/derives from the GPL library must be different from the GPL agreement. LGPL allows commercial software to use the LGPL class library through the Class Library Reference (link) without the need for code for open source commercial software. This allows open source code with the LGPL protocol to be referenced and published and sold as a class library by commercial software.

However, if you modify the code or derivation of the LGPL protocol, all the modified code, the additional code involved in the modification, and the derived code must adopt the LGPL protocol. The open source code of the LGPL protocol is therefore well suited to be referenced by commercial software as a third-party class library, but it is not intended to be used as a commercial software that is developed two times through modification and derivation, based on LGPL protocol code.

GPL/LGPL protects the original author's intellectual property and avoids the use of open source code to replicate and develop similar products

5.MIT ( MIT )

[MIT license is derived from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT), also known as "x terms" (X License) or "x11 terms" (X11 License)]

MIT is the same wide license agreement as BSD, and the author only wants to retain the copyright, without any other restrictions. That is, you must include a statement of the original license agreement in your distribution, whether you publish it in binary or source code.

Important: Commercial software can be used, you can modify the code of the MIT Protocol, and even the Code of the MIT protocol can be sold.

6.MPL (Mozilla Public License 1.1 ) 
the MPL protocol allows for free re-posting, free modification, but requiresThe modified code is copyrighted by the originator of the software. This authorization maintains the interests of commercial software, and it requires the free contribution of copyright to the software based on the modification of such software. In this way, the copyright of all the code around the software is concentrated in the hands of the initiating developer. But MPL is allowed to be modified, free to use. The MPL software does not require links.
Important: Commercial software can be used, or the code of the MPL protocol can be modified, but the modified code is copyrighted to the originator of the software.

This article is from the "9470860" blog, please be sure to keep this source http://9480860.blog.51cto.com/9470860/1637497

Comparison and differentiation of important open source agreements