

Simple description of popular open source licenses - pbagwl
http://pbagwl.com/post/5078147450/description-of-popular-software-licenses

======
mirkules
I would like to see the wording of "Companies that distribute software cannot
bring a legal claim against the software users" changed to a non-negative,
"Companies that distribute software CAN bring a legal claim against the
software users." It may seem pedantic, but the "Yes/No" arrows are ambiguous
because if you answer the "question" with arrows, it would be "Yes, companies
that distribute... cannot bring a legal action..." just sounds confusing.

Otherwise, awesome infographic.

------
3kMarlin
While LGPL and MPL are similar, there are differences and they should not be
lumped together.

The biggest difference is that MPL allows static linking while LGPL does not.
While in the past this wasn't a big deal, it is important for iOS development
since you cannot dynamically link to libraries in iOS apps.

------
anonymoushn
WTFPL and other similar licenses seem to belong with the MIT license, but
they're just floating off on their own.

~~~
sudont
Agreed. Flowcharts also assume that there is some sort of decision hierarchy
that will be followed. Who's to say that derivative works are the most
important thing here? Maybe some company/person needs to cover their ass in
another way first.

This list is less a description and more a taxonomy, which means that it's not
valuable to anyone new to these licenses. When starting a project, it's best
to convey the benefits of each license in a straightforward manner to whoever
the decision maker is. A tree like this will only confuse and ensure that an
ill-fitting license is chosen from the onset.

Simple, written definitions are therefore best, and are similar to the article
here: <http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL>

~~~
scythe
This would matter if there were more than 12 licenses. As it stands, it takes
less than a minute to look at every possibility on the chart.

~~~
beza1e1
Well, the chart does not include much. For example, i found the ISC licence
now. It seems to be equivalent to MIT, but has simpler text.

<http://www.isc.org/software/license>

------
stephth
_Code under another license can be freely linked and distributed with
software._

This misrepresents the LGPL. LGPL doesn't allow static linking. It's not a
small detail.

~~~
spc476
It does allow static linking---from section 4, paragraph d:

"d) Do one of the following:

"0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms
that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified
version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the
manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding
Source.

"1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A
suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library
already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly
with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the
Linked Version."

You just have to allow relinking in some form. Admittedly, this is easier with
dynamic linking, but the LGPL doesn't restrict static linking per se.

~~~
stephth
Yes. It's like saying humans can fly, if thrown out of an airplane. Asking
developers to distribute all the object files of their proprietary software is
not realistic. And even if one developer accepts that condition, most
developers won't, sending any open source software that she releases and that
depends on an LGPL library directly into oblivion (again, in a context where
dynamic linking is not possible).

------
brimpa
I always think it's unfortunate that posts like this leave out the horror that
is Affero GPL[1].

The gist: web apps that use anything licensed under Affero GPL to _serve
pages_ would be subject to the copyleft provisions of the license.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License>

~~~
btilly
And why, exactly, is that a horror?

The whole _point_ of the GPL is that if you use software, you deserve to have
access to its source code. It originated in an era where there was little
software in use that lived on someone else's servers which you never touched.
And so ignoring that didn't affect the GPL's intended purpose.

With the rise of the web, it is now very common to be dependent on software
that you only interact with remotely, through a website. The Affero GPL
returns the original intent of the GPL. It puts websites on the same grounds
with respect to the GPL that native applications have always been. Every
argument you can come up with against the Affero GPL was already made about
the original GPL.

If you don't like the intent of the GPL, don't apply it to things that you
create. If you don't like the effect of the GPL, don't use GPLed code in your
software. In the meantime don't bother complaining that it does exactly what
it was intended to do.

------
zalew
funny that even "I don't care" has many implementations: WTFPL,
<http://unlicense.org/>, CC0 (which wasn't invented for code), etc.

------
bitdiddle
This "simple description" at a glance appears to be just plain wrong. For
example, the GPL license is compatible with ASL2.o

