The idea is to release the software under the open licenses category so that anyone could see, modify, and distribute the source code as deemed necessary.
The term open source software refers to the software that is developed and tested through open collaboration meaning anyone with the required academic knowledge can access the source code, modify it, and distribute his own version of the updated code. Unlike open source, there are some software the source code of which can only be modified by the individual or organization who created it.
The owner or publisher of the software holds intellectual property rights of the source code exclusively. In simple terms, proprietary software is software that is solely owned by the individual or the organization that developed it. Proprietary software, as the name suggests, are exclusive property of their creators or publishers and anyone outside the community are not allowed to use, modify, copy or distribute modified versions of the software.
He is the sole owner of the program who can sell it under some concrete conditions which should be followed by the users in order to avoid any legal disputes.
Unlike open source software, the internal structure of proprietary software is not exposed and the restrictions are imposed upon the users by the End User License Agreement EULA , the conditions of which are to be legally followed by the end users regarding the software. The idea alone that developers and programmers are allowed to examine and modify the source code as deemed necessary shouts aloud control.
More control means more flexibility, which means non-programmers can also benefit from the open collaboration. Proprietary software, on the contrary, restricts control only to the owner of the software. As developers can work without any restrictions, it allows them to rectify errors that might have missed by the original developers or publishers.
Open-source software packages often have missing drivers which is natural when you have an open community of users with access to every single line of code. The software may include code modified by one or more individuals, each subject to different terms and conditions.
The lack of formal support or sometimes use of generic drivers can put the project at risk. Proprietary software means closed group support which means better performance. Unlike open-source projects, proprietary ones are typically designed keeping in mind a limited group of end users with limited skills. They target a small knit circle of end users unlike projects accomplished within open source communities.
The viewing restrictions barred the end users from modifying the code let alone debugging it effectively with no control over possible workarounds. The internal structure of proprietary software is strictly closed-access meaning they lack transparency which makes it virtually impossible for users to even suggest modifications or optimizations to the software.
Open source, on the other hand, promotes open collaboration which means lesser bugs and faster bug fixes with fewer complexities. Open-source refers to the software whose source code is available for anybody to access and modify, while proprietary software refers to the software which is solely owned by the individual or publisher who developed it.
Only if it uses one of the approved licenses , and releases appropriate software. Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern — we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license proliferation for why this is a problem.
In general, no. We run all licenses through an approval process to provide an accepted standard on which licenses are Open Source, and we list the approved ones. Be dubious of claimed Open Source-ness for licenses that haven't gone through the process.
See also the license proliferation page for why this matters so much. Many older licenses, such as the BSD license, have several variations that differ only by a few words or sentences. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to approve every variation, so we cannot say if a specific variation is approved. Where possible, please avoid using these variants, and instead use the same version used on the OSI website. Not all jurisdictions have a public domain, and it doesn't always mean exactly the same thing in the jurisdictions that do have it.
Furthermore, even where it is clear what it means, it's still not a license. To be subject to a license, a work must still be in copyright. That means there is no way for the "public domain", as a concept, to go through the OSI evaluation and approval process.
We wouldn't be evaluating a license text. Instead, we would have to somehow evaluate the laws themselves, in different jurisdictions, and say which jurisdictions have a public domain that meets the Open Source Definition and does not create problems for software authors and users.
This would be very difficult, because it would mean evaluating not just the statutes but various bodies of case law for example, open source licenses usually have a strong disclaimer of liability for the copyright holder — but we don't know how or whether the author would be protected from liability for software released into the public domain in various jurisdictions. This approach would not be useful to the OSI's mission, because open source is an international phenomenon and we only want to approve licenses that meet the Open Source Definition everywhere.
Thus we recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to software you are releasing, rather than try to waive copyright altogether. Using a clear, recognized Open Source license actually makes it easier for others to know that your software meets the Open Source Definition.
It also enables the protection of attribution, and various other non-restrictive rights, that cannot be reliably enforced when there is no license. There are certain circumstances, such as with U. In these cases, while it would be inaccurate to display the OSI logo or say that the license is OSI-approved since there is no license , nevertheless we think it is accurate to say that such software is effectively open source, or open source for most practical purposes, even though it is not officially released under an open source license.
This is assuming, of course, that in the laws of releasing jurisdiction the meaning of "public domain" is compatible with the Open Source Definition. After all, the freedoms guaranteed by open source licenses are still present, and it is possible for the familiar dynamics of open source collaboration to arise around the software.
For a detailed discussion of the complexities of the public domain and open source, search for the words "public domain" and "PD" in the subject headers of the January , February , and March archives of the OSI License Review mailing list. And if the thought of reading all those conversations is daunting, please take that as more evidence that it's just better to use an approved Open Source License if you can!
See also the CC0 question. For a different viewpoint than the one presented above, see unlicense. At this time, we do not recommend releasing software using the the CC0 public domain dedication.
Creative Commons Zero is a legal device known as a "public domain dedication". It is essentially a statement of intent by the copyright holder to waive copyright ownership in the work — that is, the copyright holder wishes to place the work into the public domain.
Because such a waiver is perhaps surprisingly not possible in all jurisdictions, CC0 also contains a "Public License Fallback" clause that goes into effect "should any part of the Waiver for any reason be judged legally invalid or ineffective under applicable law".
The fallback is essentially a copyright license that is very similar to an Open Source license, in that it gives up most of the restrictive powers associated with copyright, and allows redistribution and modification of the work. In February , Creative Commons submitted CC0 to the OSI for approval as an open source license, requesting that the OSI evaluate the public license fallback section, since the rest of the text is a waiver of rights rather than a license.
CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved, and Creative Commons eventually withdrew the application.
The most serious of the concerns raised had to do with the effects of clause 4 a , which reads: "No While many open source licenses simply do not mention patents, it is exceedingly rare for open source licenses to explicitly disclaim any conveyance of patent rights, and the Committee felt that approving such a license would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly even weaken patent infringement defenses available to users of software released under CC0.
If you don't distribute source code, then what you are distributing cannot meaningfully be called "Open Source". And if you don't distribute at all, then by definition you're not distributing source code, so you're not distributing anything Open Source. Think of it this way: Open Source licenses are always applied to the source code — so if you're not distributing the source, then you're not distributing the thing to which an Open Source license applies.
You might or might not distribute binaries; that's a separate question. But while some Open Source licenses allow you to distribute binary code without distributing the corresponding source, it is only the source code that can be "open source".
The binaries alone cannot be Open Source, because you're not making any source code available to be open. If someone else distributes the source code under an Open Source license, then that's still Open Source, of course. You can choose any license from the open source licenses listed starting here: opensource.
Most people select one from the "popular" category, but you are free to choose any listed license. If this is your first time choosing an open source license, we recommend that you find someone who has experience with open source licensing and talk to them about your project — that will help you choose the most appropriate license.
The person doesn't have to be a lawyer; it could be a developer who has experience releasing open source code. The section Choosing a License at the Civic Commons wiki may be useful, and you can learn more about open source licenses from, Section 3. Unlike bilateral copyright licenses, which are negotiated between two parties and embody a truce between them for business purposes, multilateral copyright licenses — of which open source licenses are a kind — are community agreements.
They express the consensus of how a community chooses to collaborate. They also embody its ethical assumptions, even if they are not explicitly enumerated. When that consensus includes giving permission to all to use, study improve and share the code without prejudice, the license is an open source license.
The Open Source Definition provides an objective test of evaluating that such a license is indeed an open source license and delivers the software freedom we all expect. Since licenses are the consensus of communities, it is natural that different communities will have different licenses, that communities with different norms will find fault with the licenses used by others, and that all will regard their way as optimum.
The arguments over this will be as deep as the gulf between the philosophical positions of the communities involved. Ultimately, there is no license that is right for every community. This question isn't actually specific to open source licenses — it's really just about how to apply some particular copyright license whether open source or not to your software. Please note that the OSI is not a legal services organization and does not provide legal advice.
If the license you want to apply has such instructions, just follow them. If it does not, then look at the previous two examples or at other licenses that contain similar instructions and follow a similar recipe, adjusting for the license you're actually using of course. The Software Freedom Law Center also maintains a guide on managing copyright information within open source projects.
Finally, this guide may also help, though please note again that neither it nor this FAQ item constitutes legal advice. Note that releasing software under an open source license does not involve contacting the OSI, signing up to some process, or handing a copy of your software to the OSI or any other organization for evaluation.
You just publish the software with an OSI-approved open source license attached, in the manner described above — that's all you need to do.
Many open source projects will only accept patches code contributions or documentation contributions from people who have submitted a legal document known as a contributor agreement. Contributor agreements are not open source licenses — rather, they are a way for the contributor to tell the project that it has the right to distribute the new contributions under the project's existing open source license.
Some contributor agreements also allow for the project to distribute the contributions under other open source licenses too, which enables projects to change their license in the future, and some agreements even allow the project to distribute the contributions under any license the project wants. There are two kinds of contributor agreements. In a Contributor License Agreement CLA , the original contributor retains copyright ownership of their contributions, but grants the project a broad set of rights such that the project can incorporate and distribute the contributions as it needs to.
In a Copyright Assignment Agreement CAA , the contributor actually transfers copyright ownership of the contributions to the project, who can then license it however they want since they own it but a CAA typically grants very broad non-exclusive rights back to the contributor so that they too can use, distribute, sublicense etc their contribution freely. With both CLAs and CAAs, it is of course necessary that "the project" be some kind of legal entity able to enter into agreements.
Sometimes the project is incorporated itself, usually as a non-profit entity; sometimes it is represented by an umbrella non-profit organization such as the Apache Software Foundation or the Software Freedom Conservancy ; sometimes a for-profit corporation considers itself the main sponsor of the project and requests contributor agreements in order to manage the development community and maintain a public distribution of the software in question.
For more about contributor agreements in general, and some examples, see civiccommons. See also the Project Harmony , " Definitely not! This isn't even about Open Source, really: in general, you should not remove a valid copyright notice, no matter what license it specifies. Copyright notices are legal notices; they are also a source of information about the provenance of source code, and if that information is stripped out, recipients of downstream copies have no easy way to rediscover it.
Sometimes you can; it depends on the Open Source license. Authors often want you to be able to do this, so most shared libraries are licensed under a permissive license or one that allows linking under certain circumstances e. A very small number of libraries use the GPL , which only allows linking with proprietary works if the licensor grants an explicit exception. If your organization doesn't have a specific technology or marketing roadmap in place, but requires a website with virtually unlimited customization possibilities, a custom solution based on LAMP may be a better choice.
Another benefit of the open source approach is that you don't have as many limitations on future website expansion and customization, and you can continue improving your website "as you go. Because open source solutions are supported by communities of volunteers, your initial cost may be lower with this choice, but you will most likely need to budget for technical resources to maintain it over time. With a limited budget, however, your financial resources are better directed toward the best possible website as opposed to acquiring licenses and paying mandatory fees for updates.
He is also a published author, blogger, and a recognized visionary with functional expertise in User Experience UX design, business strategy, inbound marketing, web development, and business development. Andrew has worked with some of the world's largest brands. He serves on the Forbes Technology Council and was the ninth professional in the world to be awarded Master in User Experience. Cost of Ownership Cost of ownership is one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to use open source or commercial software.
The Case for Open Source Technologies If your organization doesn't have a specific technology or marketing roadmap in place, but requires a website with virtually unlimited customization possibilities, a custom solution based on LAMP may be a better choice.
0コメント