Comparison of open source licenses
Jan Krüger <firstname.lastname@example.org>, http://jan-krueger.net/
Version 1.0, 2011-03-11
|Apache 2.0||Artistic 2.0||BSD||(L)GPL||MIT||zlib|
|Must include source||no||no||no||yes||no||no|
|May charge for copies5||yes||no6||yes||yes||yes||yes|
|Retain copyright notices||source7||yes||yes||yes||yes||no|
|Prevent fork misrepresent||no||yes||no||optional(v3)||no||yes|
|Prevent copy protection||no||no||no||yes(v3)||no||no|
|Restrict distribution of forks||no||yes8||no||no||no||no|
For distribution of forks, clearly document changes and (a) send upstream, (b) name differently and play nice with original, or (c) license it under a license that fulfills certain criteria. You must not charge licensing fees for packages that include the work. When the original work’s API/interface is not exposed, your derived work is not restricted by any other terms. The same applies if you distribute bugfixes or portability fixes.
Entries specific to version 3 (“v3” suffix) mean that the answer for version 2 is no.
Accuracy: I do not guarantee that the information in this table is correct, even though I made every effort to check it. Some details are omitted, so you shouldn’t exclusively rely on this table, anyway.
License: This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
URLs: HTML version at http://j.mp/opensource-licenses, link to PDF version at http://jan-krueger.net/opensource-licenses
This document was translated from LATEX by HEVEA.