Please note that "compatible with" and "be used with" are terms with different meanings. So, for instance, the MIT license grants users the right "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software." This is what the FSF claims about the GPL. The GNU GPLv3 is the most popular copyleft license but is steadily losing market share compared to permissive licenses. Apache License 2.0 allows users of the software to distribute, modify, or otherwise use software for any purpose, as long as the user complies with the license terms. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free. In this article, we take a look at the difference between this two licenses … MIT license and Apache License only requires that you give credit to original copyright holders. Too often, I hear it said that the MIT License has no patent license, or that it has merely some possibility of an "implied" patent license. Side-by-side comparison of MIT License vs. Apache License – Spot the differences due to the helpful visualizations at a glance – Category: License – Columns: 2 (max. There shouldn't be something patentable there. The MIT, BSD, and ISC licenses are “permissive licenses”. Some something like, say, an HTTP API wrapper module, MIT/BSD style licenses are quite sufficient. There are many open source licenses to choose from, some of them being MIT, GNU GPL, Apache 2.0, Creative Commons, BSD licenses. If you choose, you can redistribute source; but if you choose you can keep your new derived product without opening code. Moreover, neither are probably the snag that many will worry about. It is also misleading to claim that restrictiveness is subjective. Elle est écrite par l'Apache Software Foundation, qui l'applique à tous les logiciels qu'elle publie.
Side-by-side comparison of MIT License vs. Apache License – Spot the differences due to the helpful visualizations at a glance – Category: License – Columns: 2 (max. FOSS licences. FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software".
Questions about the copyright in a license should be directed to the license … It is a reasonable and non-subjective question to ask "what actions may I legally perform with these files I have obtained?" Apache, unfortunately, isn't compatible with GPL v2. But if you're building something like node.js, nginx, or Lucene, choosing MIT/BSD is likely a terrible idea. La licence Apache est une licence de logiciel libre et open source. The MIT License is a permissive free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the late 1980s. This is what the FSF claims about the GPL. MIT License. According to research by White Source, the most popular permissive licenses are MIT and Apache 2.0, with BSD in a distant third place. The content on this website, of which Opensource.org is the author, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 3) – Rows: 11 This is what the FSF claims about the GPL.
The Free Software Foundation considers the Apache License, Version 2.0 to be a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.The Software Freedom Law Center provides practical advice for developers about including permissively licensed source. Cette licence n'est pas copyleft Résumé et philosophie.