However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license. The credit requirements in section 5. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. It is based on the Mozilla Public License version 1, and is incompatible with the GPL for the same reasons: it has several requirements for modified versions that do not exist in the GPL. It also requires you to publish the source of the program if you allow others to use it.
Recent versions of Condor from 6. Only older versions of Condor use this license. The Condor Public License is a free software license.
If it made compliance an actual condition of the license, it would not be a free software license. The only change is that the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patent infringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'd program. If an initial contributor releases a specific piece of code and designates GNU GPL version 2 or later as a secondary license, that provides explicit compatibility with those GPL versions for that code.
By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL's, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License and the Common Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can't rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft. To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of code which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program.
However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. This is a free software license as far as it goes. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an invitation to buy some. Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing software under this license: you should first consider whether the licensor might aim to lure you into patent infringement.
If you conclude that the program is bait for a patent trap, it would be wise to avoid the program. It is possible that the pertinent patents have expired. Depending on whether Fraunhofer still has active patents covering the work, the software might be a trap now, or not. Of course, any program is potentially threatened by patents, and the only way to end that is to change patent law to make software safe from patents.
The license is a free software license, incompatible with the GPL. It permits relicensing under a certain class of licenses, those which include all the requirements of the Jabber license.
Therefore, it is not compatible. We have not written a full analysis of this license, but it is a free software license, with less stringent requirements on distribution than LPPL 1. It is still incompatible with the GPL because some modified versions must include a copy of or pointer to an unmodified version. This license is an incomplete statement of the distribution terms for LaTeX.
As far as it goes, it is a free software license, but incompatible with the GPL because it has many requirements that are not in the GPL. This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name.
With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program nonfree. This condition may cause trouble with some major modifications. For example, if you wanted to port an LPPL-covered work to another system that lacked a similar remapping facility, but still required users to request this file by name, you would need to implement a remapping facility too to keep this software free.
That would be a nuisance, but the fact that a license would make code nonfree if transplanted into a very different context does not make it nonfree in the original context. For this reason, it may take some careful checking to produce a version of LaTeX that is free software. The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself constitutes distribution.
We believe courts would not uphold this claim, but it is not good for people to start making the claim. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason. It's based on the Microsoft Public License , and has an additional clause to make the copyleft just a little bit stronger.
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license , it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the MPL 1. However, MPL 1. MPL version 2. See that entry for details. This is a free software license that is essentially the same as the Mozilla Public License version 1.
We urge you not to use the NOSL for this reason. It consists of the Mozilla Public License version 1. Of course, they do not give you permission to use their code in the analogous way. We urge you not to use the NPL.
This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few requirements in sections 4 and 5 that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license. The Open Software License is a free software license. Recent versions of the Open Software License have a term which requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to the license.
This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the license and would subject you to possible termination of the license.
Thus, the Open Software License makes it very difficult to develop software using the ordinary tools of free software development. For this reason, and because it is incompatible with the GPL, we recommend that no version of the OSL be used for any software. We urge you not to use the Open Software License for software you write.
Recent versions of OpenSSL from 3. Only older versions of OpenSSL use this license. You must follow both. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache 1 license. This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. Section 5 makes the license incompatible with the GPL. This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free software license. It also causes major practical inconvenience, because modified sources can only be distributed as patches.
We recommend that you avoid using the QPL for anything that you write, and use QPL-covered software packages only when absolutely necessary. You can resolve the conflict for your program by adding a notice like this to it:. You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the program.
This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, which is incompatible with the GNU GPL because of details rather than any major policy. Please do not confuse this with the Sun Community Source License , which is not a free software license.
This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with the GPL. It is incompatible because it places extra restrictions on redistribution of modified versions that contradict the redistribution requirements in the GPL. It has a copyleft similar to the one found in the Mozilla Public License. It also has a choice of law clause in section 7. These features both make the license GPL-incompatible.
This license is used by one part of PHP4. This license is identical to the Yahoo! Public License 1. Our comments there apply here as well; this is a GPL-incompatible, partial copyleft free software license.
This is a lax, fairly permissive non-copyleft free software license with practical problems like those of the original BSD license, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the ZPL version 1 for software you write.
However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as previous versions of Zope.
The following licenses do not qualify as free software licenses. Of course, we urge you to avoid using nonfree software licenses, and to avoid nonfree software in general. There is no way we could list all the known nonfree software licenses here; after all, every proprietary software company has its own. We focus here on licenses that are often mistaken for free software licenses but are, in fact, not free software licenses. We have provided links to these licenses when we can do so without violating our general policy: that we do not make links to sites that promote, encourage or facilitate the use of nonfree software packages.
The last thing we want to do is give any nonfree program some gratis publicity that might encourage more people to use it. For the same reason, we have avoided naming the programs for which a license is used, unless we think that for specific reasons it won't backfire.
If source code does not carry a license to give users the four essential freedoms, then unless it has been explicitly and validly placed in the public domain, it is not free software. Some developers think that code with no license is automatically in the public domain.
That is not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightable works are copyrighted by default. This includes programs. Absent a license to grant users freedom, they don't have any. In some countries, users that download code with no license may infringe copyright merely by compiling it or running it. In order for a program to be free, its copyright holders must explicitly grant users the four essential freedoms.
The document with which they do so is called a free software license. This is what free software licenses are for. Some countries allow authors to put code in the public domain, but that requires explicit action. If you wish to do that, the method we recommend is to use CC0 , which also works in other countries by putting on a license that is more or less equivalent to public domain.
However, in most cases it is better to copyleft your code to assure that freedom reaches all users of the code. Code written by employees of the US government is a special exception, since US copyright law explicitly puts that in the public domain; but this does not apply to works that the US pays a company to write.
It also does not apply to other countries, many of which do allow the state to have a copyright on government writings. Despite its name, this is not a free software license because it does not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simply packaging software licensed under it with anything for which a charge is made.
This is not a free software license. It places restrictions on the freedom to use the program for any purpose. Please do not use this license for your own software. We will avoid using software under this license, as we do all other nonfree software.
The Anti-Capitalist Software License is a nonfree license because it extends the four freedoms only to some kinds of organizations , not to all. Such a restriction in a software license, in the name of any cause whatsoever, imposes too much power over users.
Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under it. Versions 1. Please don't use these licenses, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under them. Version 2. We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear.
We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of the disjunctive license of Perl. The Code Project Open License is not a free software license. Section 5. We urge people to reject programs under this license and to develop free replacements. Where a previous version was available as free software, continuing development of that version is an option.
This license is nonfree because of Article 3, which arguably includes a requirement not to violate the license of any program that the user runs—even proprietary programs.
This was the old license of eCos. It is not a free software license, because it requires sending every published modified version to a specific initial developer.
There are also some other words in this license whose meaning we're not sure of that might also be problematic. This is not a free software license, because it restricts what jobs users can use the software for.
That denies freedom 0. This entry was previously listed as the First Do No Harm license. This is not a free software license, because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do.
The Jahia Community Source License is not a free software license. Use of the source code is limited to research purposes.
Should your site be featured here in this gallery? Let us know about it by opening a pull request. The results are in for the Jamstack Community Survey A framework for statically-exported React apps supports server side rendering. A modern publishing toolchain. Simply taking you from ideas to finished, polished books. A static site generator, imports from Wordpress, multi-lang publishing. React Static. A fast static site generator in a single binary with everything built-in. Sapper is a framework for building high-performance universal web apps.
An ultra-fast HTML5 build tool. Capable of static site generation. SvelteKit is an application framework powered by Svelte — build bigger apps with a smaller footprint.
Harp is a static web server that can also compile your project down to static assets. A tool that makes it easy to create intelligent and beautiful documentation, written by Georg Brandl. A static content management system that can deploy to any webserver.
A modern static website generator to create dynamic website using React components. A documentation generation tool for API reference and Markdown files. Bookdown R. An eBook authoring platform that generates GitBook-styled static sites.
R Markdown. Scully is a static site generator for Angular projects looking to embrace the Jamstack. Static Site Boilerplate. A web book-publishing system written in Racket with static html as default output target. Leverage WordPress as a great CMS, but benefit from the speed, security and portability that a static website provides.
Frog is a static web site generator implemented in Racket, targeting Bootstrap. Frozen-Flask freezes a Flask application into a set of static files.
A simple, customisable static site generator oriented towards technical blogging and light, fast-loading pages. A generic static site generator built using flatiron, plates, and marked. A Webpack-aware, Ruby-powered static site generator for the modern Jamstack era.
The react static site generator that separates editing and code concerns. A beautiful and truly unique documentation engine and static site generator. Build fast, modern sites with Elm's delightful type system to help you! Grow is a declarative, file-based static site generator for building maintainable, high-quality websites. A static website compiler and blog engine, written and extended in Python. A fast processor for high quality academic and technical articles from Markdown and LaTeX.
Almace Scaffolding. Docs-as-code knowledge base to manage Architecture Decision Records ADR for your project and publish them automatically as a static website. A static website generator that allows you to tell a story with your pictures. Website generator based on HTML rewriting instead of template processing. Single binary, extensible with Lua plugins. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The only patent claims that are licensed to Lightbend are those you own or have the right to license that read on your contribution or on the combination of your contribution with Lightbend Project as it existed at the time of your contribution.
No additional patent claims become licensed as a result of subsequent combinations of your contribution with any other software. Note, however, that licensable patent claims include those that you acquire in the future, as long as they read on your original contribution as made at the original time. Once a patent claim is subject to Grant of Patent License, it is licensed under the terms of that grant to Lightbend and to recipients of any Lightbend Project.
If you have questions about Lightbend, its projects, or its software, we recommend contacting us at support lightbend. If you have a question specifically about these licenses or distribution of Lightbend software, and it has not been answered by this page, you may send a message to support lightbend. Akka Serverless - Keep the data. Lose the database. Learn More. Case Studies. Contact Us. Where can I find the license for Akka, Play Framework and Activator and other Lightbend computer software distributed under an open source license?
That said, here's what the Apache Software License says in layman's terms: It allows you to: Freely download and use Lightbend Project, in whole or in part, for personal, company internal, or commercial purposes; Use Lightbend Project in packages or distributions that you create. It forbids you to: Redistribute any piece of software licensed under the Apache Software License without proper attribution; Use any marks owned by Lightbend in any way that is not consistent with the Trademark Policy.
It requires you to: Include a copy of the Apache Software License in any redistribution you may make that includes Lightbend Project; Provide clear attribution to Lightbend for any distributions that include Lightbend Project.
0コメント