The amount of licensing models available for open-source software is ridiculous. Why can’t the OSS zealots standardize on a few licensing models, instead of creating a new iteration every time they fix a spelling mistake in previous license?
For starters, there’s the all too familiar GNU GPL and LGPL licenses… which come in version 1, 2, 2.1 and 3. Version 4 is on its way soon.
Now head over to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and cock a snook at the variety available:
- Academic Free License 3.0 (AFL 3.0)
- Affero GNU Public License
- Adaptive Public License
- Apache License, 2.0
- Apple Public Source License
- Artistic license 2.0
- Attribution Assurance Licenses
- New and Simplified BSD licenses
- Boost Software License (BSL1.0)
- Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License 1.1
- Common Development and Distribution License
- Common Public Attribution License 1.0 (CPAL)
- Common Public License 1.0
- CUA Office Public License Version 1.0
- EU DataGrid Software License
- Eclipse Public License
- Educational Community License, Version 2.0
- Eiffel Forum License V2.0
- Entessa Public License
- European Union Public License (link to every language’s version on their site)
- Fair License
- Frameworx License
- GNU General Public License (GPL)
- GNU General Public License version 3.0 (GPLv3)
- GNU Library or “Lesser” General Public License (LGPL)
- GNU Library or “Lesser” General Public License version 3.0 (LGPLv3)
- Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer
- IBM Public License
- IPA Font License
- ISC License
- Lucent Public License Version 1.02
- Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
- Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL)
- MIT license
- Motosoto License
- Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL)
- Multics License
- NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3
- NTP License
- Naumen Public License
- Nethack General Public License
- Nokia Open Source License
- Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 (Non-Profit OSL 3.0)
- OCLC Research Public License 2.0
- Open Font License 1.1 (OFL 1.1)
- Open Group Test Suite License
- Open Software License 3.0 (OSL 3.0)
- PHP License
- Python license (CNRI Python License)
- Python Software Foundation License
- Qt Public License (QPL)
- RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0
- Reciprocal Public License 1.5 (RPL1.5)
- Ricoh Source Code Public License
- Simple Public License 2.0
- Sleepycat License
- Sun Public License
- Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0
- University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License
- Vovida Software License v. 1.0
- W3C License
- wxWindows Library License
- X.Net License
- Zope Public License
- zlib/libpng license
I like the close source world much better. OSS makes redistributing, or basing your application on the work of others a royal pain in the arse.
I did come across the WTFPL though – “Do What The Fuck You Want To public License.” The entire license is:
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
14 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
Aka, do whatever you like, modify the license however you like, and best of all, it’s a legally recognized license which will hold up in court 
Read more about it here: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
Recent Comments