Copyleft mit license bitcoin

To make matters more complicated, cpp-ethereum, which contains all of ethereum's core libraries, appears to be currently licensed under the GPL. Not only does this conflict with the foundation's indication that the final core licenses are undetermined, but it is not even among the options listed by the foundation for consideration. The GPL is neither a permissive license nor a "weak copyleft" one. Rather, it contains significant restrictions on downstream modification and redistribution.

The current utilization of a strong copyleft license and the apparent uncertainty as to the final licensing scheme pose potentially material risks for developers. Until the final license is determined, developers of ethereum-based applications are subject to any shifts or divisions in the philosophy behind the licensing of ethereum — a philosophy the Ethereum Foundation freely admits already contains rifts among the various stakeholders.

None of this is to say that developers should not utilize ethereum or that the Ethereum Foundation is doing anything wrong in its approach. Rather, commercial developers need to understand the complications of open-source licensing and the unique wrinkles in the context of ethereum. The downside of underestimating or misjudging the risks is far too great.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk strives to offer an open platform for dialogue and discussion on all things blockchain by encouraging contributed articles. As such, the opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of CoinDesk. For more details on how you can submit an opinion or analysis article, view our Editorial Collaboration Guide or email news coindesk. Ethereum Intellectual Property Copyright.

Feb 1, at After a year in which the company suffered a high-profile hack, ethereum startup Parity is now moving forward on key project development. Jan 30, at Jan 29, at Ethereum's ether token could revisit record highs very soon, courtesy of last week's bullish price action.

Jan 26, at The proliferation of different free software licenses is a significant problem in the free software community today, both for users and developers. We will do our best to help you find an existing free software license that meets your needs. If you are wondering what license a particular software package is using, please visit the Free Software Directory.

The Free Software Directory catalogues over free software packages and their licensing information. We recommend it for most software packages. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. We recommend the latest version for most software.

This is the latest version of the LGPL: It is compatible with GPLv3. We recommend it for special circumstances only. This is the previous version of the LGPL: We generally recommend the latest version of the LGPL , for special circumstances only. To learn more about how LGPLv2. This is a free software, copyleft license.

Its terms effectively consist of the terms of GPLv3, with an additional paragraph in section 13 to allow users who interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that program.

It is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: However, you are allowed to combine separate modules or source files released under both of those licenses in a single project, which will provide many programmers with all the permission they need to make the programs they want. See section 13 of both licenses for details.

All developers can feel free to use it in similar situations. Older versions of this license did not have the second sentence with the express warranty disclaimer. This same analysis applies to both versions. Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version.

These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we recommend the Apache 2. This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL thanks to the relicensing option in section 4 c ii. This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It is the minimal set of changes needed to correct the vagueness of the Artistic License 1.

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified BSD license are more or less equivalent. However, the Apache 2. CC0 is a public domain dedication from Creative Commons. A work released under CC0 is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest extent permitted by law. If that is not possible for any reason, CC0 also provides a lax, permissive license as a fallback.

You might look at that as a problem for the developer; however, if you are sure you would want to cooperate with the users in those ways anyway, then it isn't a problem for you.

It is based on the modified BSD license , and adds a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses. Because of this, we encourage you to be careful about using software under this license; you should first consider whether the licensor might want to sue you for patent infringement. If the developer is refusing users patent licenses to set up a trap for you, it would be wise to avoid the program. It is very similar to the X11 license.

The eCos license version 2. This license has the same disadvantages as the LGPL. This is a free software license, and it is compatible with GPLv3.

It is based on the Apache License 2. Previous releases of the Eiffel license are not compatible with the GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License. For substantial programs it is better to use the Apache 2. This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and another clause removed. Our comments about the Modified BSD license apply to this license too. This is a free software license, and compatible with GPLv3. It has some attribution requirements which make it incompatible with GPLv2.

This is a lax, permissive, and weak free software license that is compatible with the GPL. It is similar to the license of Python 1. This is a free software license, and GPL-compatible. The author has explained to us that the GPL's options for providing source all mean the source has been "made available publicly" in their words.

The authors have assured us that developers who document changes as required by the GPL will also comply with the similar requirement in this license. In the United States, these licenses are supposed to be interpreted based on what the author seems to intend. So they probably mean what they appear to mean. However, an unlucky choice of wording could give it a different meaning. However, many other countries have a more rigid approach to copyright licenses.

There is no telling what courts in those countries might decide an informal statement means. Courts might even decide that it is not a license at all. If you want your code to be free, don't invite gratuitous trouble for your users. Please choose and apply an established free software license.

We offer recommendations that we suggest you follow. This license is sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License, although there is one minor difference between the two licenses. The OpenBSD license was updated to remove the ambiguous term: However, ISC has told us they do not share the University of Washington's interpretation, and we have every reason to believe them.

Thus, there's no reason to avoid software released under this license. However, to help make sure this language cannot cause any trouble in the future, we encourage developers to choose a different license for their own works. This is a free software license. When you receive work under MPL 2. When you do, section 3. It's important to understand that the condition to distribute files under the MPL's terms only applies to the party that first creates and distributes the Larger Work.

That said, when you make contributions to an existing project, we usually recommend that you keep your changes under the same license , even when you're not required to do so. If you receive a work under a GNU license where some files are also under the MPL, you should only remove the MPL from those files when there's a strong reason to justify it. Parties who release original work under MPL 2.

Software under previous versions of the MPL can be upgraded to version 2. This license is based on the terms of the Expat and modified BSD licenses. This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1. It qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real copyleft. We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming.

Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. If you want to release your work to the public domain, we encourage you to use formal tools to do so.

We ask people who make small contributions to GNU to sign a disclaimer form; that's one solution. If you're working on a project that doesn't have formal contribution policies like that, CC0 is a good tool that anyone can use. It formally dedicates your work to the public domain, and provides a fallback license for cases where that is not legally possible.

Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python 1. Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are under other licenses see above and below.

It is essentially identical to the X11 License , with an optional alternative way of providing license notices. However, they all included clauses that allow you to upgrade to new versions of the license, if you choose to do so.

As a result, if a piece of software was released under any version of the SGI Free License B, you can use it under the terms of this free version. This is a license that Unicode, Inc. It is a lax permissive license, compatible with all versions of the GPL. If you want to use files covered by this License Agreement in your own software, that shouldn't be any problem, but we recommend that you also include a full copy of its text. Some of the files contain alternative license terms which are nonfree, or no licensing information at all, so including a copy of the License Agreement will help avoid confusion when others want to distribute your software.

Of course, you'll also need to follow the conditions in this License Agreement for distributing the files, but those are very straightforward.

Please take care to ensure that the files you are using are covered by this License Agreement. Other files published by Unicode, Inc. Software in the Public Interest published Archived from the original on Licenses currently found in Debian main include: Free and open-source software. Alternative terms for free software Comparison of open-source and closed-source software Comparison of source code hosting facilities Free software Free software project directories Gratis versus libre Long-term support Open-source software Open-source software development Outline.

Free software movement History Open-source software movement Organizations Events. Book Category Commons Portal. Retrieved from " https: Articles citing retracted publications Articles containing potentially dated statements from All articles containing potentially dated statements All articles lacking reliable references Articles lacking reliable references from November All articles with failed verification Articles with failed verification from November Views Read Edit View history.