Open source ≠ free, open source Agreement license detailed

In the case of software development, open source software or open source components, they will be based on some kind of protocol to provide source code and authorization, then what are the constraints of these open source agreements?

Before introducing it, it must be told that the idea of "open Source = free" must be dispelled for open source agreements, as the truth of "no free lunch in the world" is also applicable here ...

The various open source protocols extracted in this article are described below:

Apache Licence 2.0

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, you need to explain it in the modified file.
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 instructions.
4. If the rereleased 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.

English Original: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html excerpt from: http://www.oschina.net/question/12_2828

Gpl

Among the various licenses used in free software, it is perhaps most likely that the universal Public License (General License, referred to as the GPL) is the most notable.

The GPL, like other free software licenses, permits the public to enjoy the freedom to run and reproduce software, to distribute the software freely, to gain the freedom to source the software, to improve the software and to disseminate the improved version of itself to the society.
The GPL also stipulates that the whole of the modified text must circulate in accordance with the GPL as long as the modified text is in whole or part of it from a procedure that follows the GPL, not only that the source code of the modified text must be disclosed to the society, but also that the flow of such modified text does not permit the limitation of the additional modifier. Therefore, a procedure that follows the GPL may not be combined with non-free software. This circulation rule, as expressed by the GPL, is called copyleft, which means "at odds" with the concept of copyright.

The main principles of the GPL Agreement are:

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 of software release, you must also attach the source code. 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. Companies or individuals who develop or maintain software developed under the GPL may charge a service fee for 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.

Excerpt from: http://www.oschina.net/question/12_2826

Bsd

The BSD Open source agreement is an agreement that gives users a great deal of freedom. You can use it freely, modify the source code, or post the modified code as open source or proprietary software. When you publish code that uses the BSD protocol, or you develop your own product two times based on the BSD protocol code, you need to meet three conditions:

• If the re-published product contains source code, it must be in the source code with the BSD protocol in the original code.
• 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.
• The author/organization name of the open source code and the name of the original product may not be used for marketing.

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. Many companies prefer the BSD protocol when choosing an open source product, because they can control the code of these third parties in full, and can be modified or developed two times when necessary.

Excerpt from: http://www.oschina.net/question/12_2825

MIT

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

MIT content is quite similar to the content of the three BSD license (3-clause BSD license), but gives the software a greater right and less restriction on the authorized person.

The authorized person has the right to use, reproduce, modify, merge, publish, distribute, redistribute, license and sell copies of software and software.

The authorized person may modify the authorization terms to the appropriate content according to the requirements of the program.

Copyright notices and license notices must be included in all copies of the software and software.

This license is not a copyleft free software license, and is permitted in free/open source software or non-free software (proprietary software).

This is also an essentially different place for MIT and BSD (the BSD license, 3-clause BSD license).

The MIT terms may coexist with other license terms. In addition, the MIT terms are also licensed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which are compatible with the GPL.

Agreement English Original: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php excerpt from: http://www.oschina.net/question/12_2829

MPL

The MPL is a shorthand for the Mozilla Public License, a software license designed by Mozilla Group Netscape in early 1998 for its open source software projects. The most important reason for the MPL license is that Netscape believes that the GPL license does not well balance the developer's need for source code and the benefits they derive from using the source code. Compared to the famous GPL license and BSD license, the MPL is the same as many of the rights and obligations (because they are all open source software licenses that are OSIA certified). However, there are several notable differences in MPL compared to the following:

The MPL requires that modifications to the source code issued by the MPL license be re-licensed in the form of an MPL license to ensure that other people can share the source under the MPL's terms. However, the definition of "release" in the MPL License is "file published as source code", which means that the MPL allows an enterprise to add an interface to its existing source code base, except that the source of the interface program is licensed in the form of an MPL license, The source code repository can be used to force external licensing without the MPL license. These, for reference to other people's source code for their own business software development behavior left a gap.
The MPL License in section 7th allows licensee to mix the source code obtained by the MPL license with its own other types of code to obtain its own software program.
In the case of software patents, the MPL license does not expressly object to software patents as the GPL permits, but expressly requires that the source code provider be unable to provide the protected source code (unless he is a patent owner, and that the source codes are freely licensed to the public in writing), It is also not possible to apply these source code licenses in the form of an open source license before applying for patents related to these source codes.
Definition of the source code
In the MPL (1.1 version) license, the source code is defined as: "The source code refers to the work to modify the first playable form, it includes: all the modules of all the source program, plus the definition of the interface, plus control of the installation and compilation of executable Works ' original ' (Original is ' Script '), or is not significantly different from the original source code is the source code contributor selected from the public domain can get the program code. ”
MPL License 3rd There is a special section on the source code changes to describe the provisions, that is, all the re-publishers have to have a special file on the source code changes in the time and the way the changes are described.

English Original: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html excerpt from: http://www.oschina.net/question/12_2830

Lgpl

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

Excerpt excerpted from: http://www.oschina.net/question/12_2664

Open source ≠ free, open source Agreement license detailed