Permissive free software licence
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
![](/w/images/thumb/3/38/Software-license-classification-mark-webbink.svg/400px-Software-license-classification-mark-webbink.svg.png)
A Permissive software license, sometimes also called BSD-like or BSD-style license,[2] is a FOSS software license with minimal requirements about how the software can be redistributed. Well-known examples of permissive free software licenses include the MIT License, BSD licenses and the Apache license. As of 2015, the most popular FOSS license is the permissive MIT license.[3][4]
Contents
Definitions
The OSI defines a permissive software license plainly as a "non-copyleft license".[5] GitHub's choosealicense website described the MIT permissive license as "lets people do anything they want with your code as long as they provide attribution back to you and don’t hold you liable."[6] California Western School of Law's newmediarights.com defined them as: "The ‘BSD-like’ licenses such as the BSD, MIT, and Apache licenses are extremely permissive, requiring little more than attributing the original portions of the licensed code to the original developers in your own code and/or documentation.".[2]
Other terms
Copycenter
Copycenter is a term originally used to explain the modified BSD license, a permissive free software licence. The term was presented by Kirk McKusick, a computer scientist famous for his work on BSD, during one of his speeches at BSDCon 1999. It is a word play on copyright, copyleft and copy center.
- REDIRECT Template:Blockquote
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
The liberty to 'make as many copies as you want' is in fact also provided by all copyleft licences. However, unlike both copyleft licences and copyright law, permissive free software licences do not control the licence terms that a derivative work falls under.
Copyfree
![](/w/images/thumb/0/05/WTFPL_logo.svg/100px-WTFPL_logo.svg.png)
The Copyfree Initiative defines Copyfree as a type of permissive copyright license which falls under their Copyfree Standard Definition.[8] which implies distinct licence term requirements analogous to, but different from, those of free software.
Copyfree licenses include the Simplified BSD license, the Open Works license, and others, but not the GNU GPL or other copyleft licenses. The Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication and the WTFPL license are also considered to be copyfree.[9]
While all copyfree licenses are permissive licenses, not all permissive licenses are copyfree, since they may introduce limitations not allowed under the copyfree definition. The Apache License 2.0 (as well as previous versions of this license) is an example of a non-copyfree permissive license.[10] Another notable example is the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, which is also incompliant with the Copyfree Standard Definition because the licence forbids DRM technologies.
Comparison to public domain
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai used the term "public domain" to refer to works that have become widely shared and distributed under permission, rather than work that was deliberately put into the public domain. However, permissive licenses are not actually equivalent to releasing a work into the public domain.
Permissive licenses often do stipulate some limited requirements, such as that the original authors must be credited (attribution). If a work is truly in the public domain, this is usually not legally required, but a United States copyright registration requires disclosing material that has been previously published,[11] and attribution may still be considered an ethical requirement in academia.
Comparison to copyleft
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
A major difference between the set of permissive and copyleft free software licenses is that when the software is being redistributed (either modified or unmodified), permissive licences don't enforce the redistributor to open the modified source code. Copyleft ("sharealike") licenses enforce the publication of the source code under the copyleft license.[12][13] Some people argue that copyleft licenses see the world as "evil" and therefore enforce "freedoms" ("availability of source code") while permissive license see the world as "good", therefore just allowing good actions and hoping for giving back in form of source code.[14] Permissive licenses don't try to guarantee that future generations of the software will remain free and publicly available, in contrast to licences which have reciprocity / share-alike requirements which try to enforce this.
The FreeBSD project argues on the advantages of permissive licenses for companies and commercial use-cases: they place only "minimal restrictions on future behavior" and aren't "legal time-bombs", unlike copyleft licenses.[15]
Also permissive licenses have often an excellent license compatibility,[16][17] in comparison to copyleft licenses who can't be always freely combined and mixed.[18][19] However, most GPLv2 licensed software allows to upgrade to the terms of later versions of the GPL, achieving by that a somewhat better inter-GPL compatibility. Also, some copyleft licenses have exception clauses that allow combining them with software that is under different licenses or license versions.[20]
License compatibility
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
![](/w/images/thumb/1/1d/Floss-license-slide-image.png/400px-Floss-license-slide-image.png)
In general permissive licenses show a good license compatibility with most other software licenses in most situations.[17][16]
Due to their non-restrictiveness most permissive software licenses are even compatible with copyleft licenses, which are incompatible with most other licenses. Copyleft licenses don't allow the addition of additional restrictive clauses which would be often required in a combined work made from copyleft code and other licensed code. Only some older permissive licenses have clauses requiring advertising materials to credit the copyright holder which made them incompatible with copyleft licenses, for instance the 4-clause BSD license, the PHP License, and the OpenSSL Licence. Popular modern permissive licenses, as the MIT License, the 3-clause BSD license, and the Zlib License, don't include advertising clauses and are compatible with many copyleft licenses.
Some licenses do not allow derived works to add a restriction that says a redistributor cannot add more restrictions. Examples include the CDDL and MsPL. However such restrictions also make the licence incompatible with permissive free software licences.
Some licenses are permissive but do not qualify as free software licenses as defined by the Free Software Foundation. See example:
Reception and adoption
While always an important part of the FOSS license landscape, in the 2010s years several authors noted a raising popularity of the permissive licenses in contrast to the copyleft license.[22][23][24][25]
As of 2015[update], a permissive license, the MIT license, became the most popular license in the FOSS domain before a copyleft one, the second placed GPLv2.[3][4]
See also
![]() |
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: FOSS Licensing |
External links
- Critical discussion of the term on copyfree.org
References
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ permissive on opensource.org "A "permissive" license is simply a non-copyleft open source license — one that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify, and redistribute, but that permits proprietary derivative works."
- ↑ Choosing an open source license doesn’t need to be scary on choosealicense.com "Which of the following best describes your situation? - I want it simple and permissive."
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Anonymous. Copyfree Licenses. Copyfree. . URL:http://copyfree.org/licenses/. Accessed: 2013-04-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6GFsj0kGe)
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ US Copyright Office Form CO; see also Ashton-Tate v. Fox
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ The Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS) License Slide by David A. Wheeler on September 27, 2007
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Does your code need a license? Posted 02 May 2013 by Jason Hibbets "Q: Are there software development companies favoring a certain open source license over another? What is the trend in the community? A: We're definitely seeing some trends away from copyleft licenses—mostly towards permissive licenses"