A free software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are. Reno, NV, October 30, 2008 – Biotique Systems announced today that it has licensed XRAY Excel Array Analysis software to Duke University. XRAY provides easy to.
OIT at Duke University. to access popular software titles at greatly reduced rates by maintaining a variety of large-scale and campus-wide licenses. Software. Rdc-analytic/rdc-Panda License. Prof. Bruce Donald at Duke University. The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your.
Microsoft Site License - Information. Staff. After half a year away from the Duke network, the software deactivates and loses. University-owned laptop or. OIT has entered into a volume license agreement with Articulate software, and licenses of Articulate. at the OIT site: https://oit.duke.edu/comp-print. Site License Reference List. and research at Duke University by Duke faculty and staff. SAS software licenses are available at no cost to the Duke community. Stay current on new releases, patches, expirations, and other important OIT. Purchase licenses. Duke University. OIT Software Licensing is powered by WordPress. OIT at Duke University. Human Resources. Duke negotiates with vendors to make software available to Duke. Free licenses of think-cell are available for Duke.
Free software license - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Software licenses in context of copyright according to Mark Webbink.[1] From left to right less rights for a licensee/user of a software and more rights retained by the owner. First three license catgories from left are considered being part of the "free software" ecosystem, also including public domain like licenses (e. CC0). The free software licensing spectrum and some examples of programs under those licenses according to David A. Wheeler.[2]A free software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are usually prohibited by copyright law, but the rights- holder (usually the author) of a piece of software can remove these restrictions by accompanying the software with a software license which grants the recipient these rights.
Software using such a licence is free software (or free and open source software) as conferred by the copyright holder. Free software licenses are applied to software in source code as also binary object code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.[3]Some free software licenses include "copyleft" provisions which require all future versions to also be distributed with these freedoms. The permissive free software licences are typically shorter and not as complex as copyleft licenses, only containing the grant of rights, a disclaimer of warranty and demanding sometimes attribution of the authors. While historically the most widely used FOSS license has been the GNU General Public License v. Black Duck Software[4] as also Git. Hub statistics,[5] the permissive MIT license dethroned the GPLv.
Apache license follows already at third place. History[edit]Pre 1. In the early times of software, sharing of software and source code was common in certain communities, for instance academic institutions.
Before the US Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) decided in 1. Therefore, software had no licenses attached and was shared as public domain software.
The CONTU decision plus court decisions such as Apple v. Franklin in 1. 98.
Copyright Act gave computer programs the copyright status of literary works and started the software licensing. Free software licenses before the late 1.
These early licenses were of the "permissive" kind. In the mid- 1. 98. GNU project produced copyleft free software licenses for each of its software packages. An early such license (the "GNU Emacs Copying Permission Notice") was used for GNU Emacs in 1. GNU Emacs General Public License".[8] Likewise, the similar GCC General Public License was applied to the GNU Compiler Collection, which was initially published in 1. The original BSD license is also one of the first free software licenses, dating to 1. In 1. 98. 9, version 1 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) was published.
Version 2 of the GPL, released in 1. Starting in the mid- 9. In the Dot- com bubble time, Netscape Communications' step to release its webbrowser under a FOSS license in 1. FOSS ecosystem.[1.
In this trend companies and new projects (Mozilla, Apache foundation, Sun etc, see also this list) wrote their own FOSS licenses, or adapted existing licenses. This License proliferation was later recognized as problem for the Free and open source ecosystem due to the increased complexity of license compatibility considerations.[1.
While the creation of new licenses slowed down later, license proliferation and its impact are considered an ongoing serious challenge for the free and open source ecosystem. From the free software licenses, the GNU GPL version 2 has been tested in to court, first in Germany (2.
USA. In the German case the judge did not explicitly discuss the validity of the GPL's clauses but accepted that the GPL had to be adhered to: "If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available." Because the defendant did not comply with the GPL, it had to cease use of the software.[1. The US case (My. SQL vs Progress) was settled before a verdict was arrived at, but at an initial hearing, Judge Saris "saw no reason" that the GPL would not be enforceable.[2.
Around 2. 00. 4 lawyer Lawrence Rosen argued in the essay Why the public domain isn't a license software could not truly be waived into public domain and can't be interpreted as very permissive FOSS license,[2. Daniel J. Bernstein and others.[2.
In 2. 01. 2 the dispute was finally resolved when Rosen accepted the CC0 as open source license, while admitting that contrary to his previous claims copyright can be waived away, backed by Ninth circuit decisions.[2. In 2. 00. 7, after years of draft discussion, the GPLv. GPLv. 2 was released. The release was controversial[2. GPLv. 2.[2. 5] Several major FOSS projects (Linux kernel,[2.
My. SQL[2. 8]Busy. Box,[2. 9][3. 0]Blender,[3. VLC media player[3. GPLv. 3. On the other hand in 2. GPLv. 3, Google open- source programs office manager Chris Di. Bona reported that the number of open- source projects licensed software that had moved to GPLv. GPLv. 2 was 5. 0%, counting the projects hosted at Google Code.[3.
In 2. 01. 1, four years after the release of the GPLv. GPLv. 3 while 4. 2. GPLv. 2 according to Black Duck Software data.[2. Following in 2. 01. Group analyst Matthew Aslett argued in a blog post that copyleft licenses went into decline and permissive licenses increased, based on statistics from Black Duck Software.[3. In 2. 01. 5 according to Black Duck Software[4] and Git. Hub statistics,[5] the permissive MIT license dethroned the GPLv.
Free software license to the second place while the permissive Apache license follows already at third place. Definitions[edit]OSI- approved "open source" licenses[edit]The group Open Source Initiative (OSI) defines and maintains a list of approved open source licenses. OSI agrees with FSF on all widely used Free Software licenses, but differ from FSF's list, as it approves against the Open Source Definition rather than the Free Software Definition. It considers Free Software Permissive license group to be a reference implementation of a Free Software license.[citation needed][clarification needed] Thus its requirements for approving licenses are different. FSF- approved "free software" licenses[edit]The Free Software Foundation, the group that maintains the Free Software Definition, maintains a non- exhaustive list of Free Software licences.[3. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users.[1] Free software developers guarantee everyone equal rights to their programs; any user can study the source code, modify it, and share the program. By contrast, most software carries fine print that denies users these basic rights, leaving them susceptible to the whims of its owners and vulnerable to surveillance.
The Free Software Foundation prefers copyleft (share- alike) Free Software licensing rather than permissive Free Software licensing for most purposes. Its list distinguishes between free software licenses that are compatible or incompatible with the FSF's copyleft GNU General Public License. Restrictions in "free software licenses"[edit]There exists an ongoing debate within the free software community regarding the fine line between what restrictions can be applied and still be called "free". Only "public domain software" and software under a public domain- like license is restriction free. Examples public domain like licenses are for instance the WTFPL or the CC0 license. Permissive licenses might carry small obligations like attribution of the author but allow practically all code use cases. Certain licenses, namely the copyleft licenses, include intentionally stronger restrictions (especially on the distribution/distributor) in order to force derived projects to guarantee specific rights which can't be taken away.
Copyleft[edit]The free software sharealike licenses written by Richard Stallman in the mid- 1. Ensuing copyleft provisions stated that when modified versions of free software are distributed, they must be distributed under the same terms as the original software. Hence they are referred to as "share and share alike" or "quid pro quo".
This results in the new software being open source as well. Since copyleft ensures that later generations of the software grant the freedom to modify the code, this is "Free Software". Non- copyleft licenses do not ensure that later generations of the software remain free. Developers who use GPL code in their product must make the source code available to anyone when they share or sell the object code. In this case, the source code must also contain any changes the developers may have made. If GPL code is used but not shared or sold, the code is not required to be made available and any changes may remain private.
This permits developers and organizations to use and modify GPL code for private purposes (i. Supporters of GPL claim that by mandating that derivative works remain under the GPL, it fosters the growth of free software and requires equal participation by all users. Opponents of GPL claim[3. GPL outweigh[3. 9] its advantages.
Some also argue that restricting distribution makes the license less free. Whereas proponents would argue that not preserving freedom during distribution would make it less free. For example, a non- copyleft license does not grant the author the freedom to see modified versions of his or her work if it get publicly published, whereas a copyleft license does grant that freedom.
Patent retaliation[edit]During the 1. This new threat was one of the reasons for writing version 3 of the GNU GPL in 2. In recent years, a term coined tivoization describes a process where hardware restrictions are used to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware, which the Ti.