Which software license is right for you?
y | n | ?
Free/open source license (OSI compatible)
Copyleft (what is it?)
Can be used with/integrated into software of a different license
A different license can be used for CHANGES to the source code
GPLv3 compatible
Apache License v2.0
The Apache License requires preservation of the copyright notice and disclaimer, but it is not a copyleft license - it allows use of the source code for the development of free and open source software as well as proprietary software.New BSD License
The licenses have few restrictions compared to other free software licenses such as the GNU General Public License or even the default restrictions provided by copyright, putting it relatively closer to the public domain. The BSD licenses have been referred to as copycenter, as a comparison to standard copyright and copyleft free software.GPL (GNU General Public License) v3.0
The GPL is the most popular and well-known example of the type of strong copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft. Under this philosophy, the GPL is said to grant the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses (the BSD licenses).LGPL (GNU Lesser General Public License) v3.0
The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program itself but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely links with the program. It was designed as a compromise between the strong-copyleft GPL and permissive licenses such as the BSD licenses and the MIT License.MIT License
The MIT License is a permissive license, meaning that it permits reuse within proprietary software on the condition that the license is distributed with that software, and GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT License.Mozilla Public License v1.1
The license is regarded as a weak copyleft. Specifically, source code copied or changed under the MPL must stay under the MPL. Unlike strong copyleft licenses, the code under the MPL may be combined in a program with proprietary files which would otherwise be derivative works of the MPL code.CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License) v1.0
CDDL is a free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1. Files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary.CPL (Common Public License) v1.0
The CPL has some terms that are similar to the GNU General Public License, but there are some key differences. One difference is in a patent clause designed to prevent unscrupulous contributors from contributing code which infringes on their patents, and then attempting to charge royalties; in such a situation, the CPL requires the contributor to grant a royalty-free license to all recipients.EPL (Eclipse Public License) v1.0
The Eclipse Public License is designed to be a business friendly free software license, and features weaker copyleft provisions than contemporary licenses such as the GNU General Public License (GPL). The receiver of EPL-licensed programs can use, modify, copy and distribute the work and modified versions, in some cases being obligated to release their own changes. It replaces the CPL and removes certain terms relating to patent litigation.Open Software License v3.0
The OSL is a copyleft license, with a termination clause triggered by filing a lawsuit alleging patent infringement. Many people in the free software / open source community feel that software patents are harmful to software, and are particularly harmful to open source software. The OSL attempts to counteract that by creating a pool of software which a user can use if that user does not harm it by attack of it with a patent lawsuit.