License opensource

What is "copyleft"? Is it the same as "open source"? What is a "permissive" Open Source license? Which Open Source license should I choose to release my software under? Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license?

Varying in complexity and requirements, it is up to organizations to choose which licenses are most compatible with their policies to ensure that they remain compliant.

The two main categories of open source licenses often require in-depth explanation. Open source licenses can be divided into two main categories: copyleft and permissive.

This division is based on the requirements and restrictions the license places on users. Copyright is a law that restricts the right to use, modify, and share creative works without the permission of the copyright holder. Think about music, movies, etc that are the intellectual property of their creator. When an author releases a program under a copyleft license, they make a claim on the copyright of the work and issue a statement that other people have the right to use, modify, and share the work as long as the reciprocity of the obligation is maintained.

In short, if they are using a component with this kind of open source license, then they too must make their code open for use by others as well. A permissive open source license is a non-copyleft open source license that guarantees the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute, while also permitting proprietary derivative works.

That means that this type of license allows varying degrees of freedom to use, modify, and redistribute open source code, permitting its use in proprietary derivative works, and requiring nearly nothing in return in regards to obligations moving forward.

Anyone can create an open source license that suits their fancy, which is the reason that there are so many out there. This could make choosing an open source license complicated business, especially for those of us who are not well versed in the law and have never had open source licenses explained thoroughly.

In order to help narrow down the decision and make sense of it all, the OSI put together a list of approved licenses, consisting of a little over 80 open source licenses that are most commonly used. Of the tens of open source licenses in the OSI approved list, some reign supreme and are used by some of the most popular open source projects out there. GPL is a copyleft license.

This means that any software that is written based on any GPL component must be released as open source. No one should use these licenses going forward, although we assume that licensors may or may not choose to continue to use them. For over 20 years the Open Source Initiative OSI has worked to raise awareness and adoption of open source software, and build bridges between open source communities of practice.

As a global non-profit , the OSI champions software freedom in society through education, collaboration, and infrastructure, stewarding the Open Source Definition OSD , and preventing abuse of the ideals and ethos inherent to the open source movement.

Open source software is made by many people and distributed under an OSD-compliant license which grants all the rights to use, study, change, and share the software in modified and unmodified form.

Software freedom is essential to enabling community development of open source software. Just to play devils advocate here: Sure, nothing forces you to release your proprietary code under the GPL if you have a derivative work and you are not in compliance with the license.

You could certainly just stop distributing the software you have spent years developing, cost you millions of dollars to develop, and your business depends on it. So while you are not "forced" to license your formerly proprietary software under the GPL, companies are often left with very few options to remedy the situation and continue distributing their proprietary software.

Depending on who the copyright holder is on the dependent GPL software, you may be able to get an exception from the copyright holder possibly in exchange for money. If you're unable to get an exception, your only options are to either stop distributing your license-infringing software or release your software under the GPL. Well another option is to re-architect the integration as a "plugin". This means you take your codebase which is "all rights reserved" or differently licensed, separate it out from the GPL licensed code you wanted to work with, and try to only join the two together very loosely with a defined API.

It might be that your code is the "main software" and the GPL bit is the "plugin", or the other way round. Depending on the situation, that might be more hassle than it's worth, and obviously it's easier done if you think about doing it this way in the first place.

The critical part for derivative works is in regards to this statement: "The remedy for copyright infringement is either damages money or injunction stop using the GPL code. Which begs the question - what is the status of the derivative work AFTER any damages have been paid? Does it remain subject to GPL terms or is it now free of them? Or is that subject to agreement and quanta? I think this depends on how exactly the copyright infringement is settled. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

The copyright holder may sue you for damages, and still require you to come into compliance with the GPL. Depending on which version of the GPL you are using, the copyright holder may have to explicitly give you permission to resume distributing your software presumably after they have verified you are now in compliance with the license.

I believe other versions of the GPL version 3 I think allow you to have your rights restored immediately if you come into compliance with the license only for first time offenses. Another way damages might be paid would be for the copyright holder holder to grant you an exception in exchange for something. If the copyright holder is your best friend, they may just grant you the exception to use their software however you want without having to pay any real "damages".