• rnd@lemmy.4d2.orgEnglish
      2·
      7 hours ago

      Typically yes, a free / open-source software license gives the user the right to use the program, to spread it around, and to create derivative programs based on the original source code, as long as the new derivative program follows certain rules.

      For permissive licenses (such as the MIT license), the rule is something like “put this acknowledgment somewhere the user can see”, if you’ve ever seen an “Open-Source Licenses” menu item somewhere, that’s where they usually put these.

      For “copyleft” licenses (such as the GPL), the rule also requires that your modified version is also distributed as open-source under the same conditions.

      Most definitions of free or open-source licenses also require the license to impose no additional restrictions on how, or for which purposes, the software can be modified. The RAR archive extractor, for instance, is not open-source, because the license for its source code prohibits it from being used to make a program capable of making RAR archives. Some developers add conditions to restrict undesired uses, such as commercial or military use of their software. These licenses are likewise not considered “open source”, but rather “source-available”.

  • ejs@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    12 hours ago

    license for software whose source code is openly available for anyone to view, use, modify, and share

  • megopie@beehaw.orgEnglish
    6·
    16 hours ago

    Roughly speaking a legal document stating what the author lets people do with their open source code. There are multiple types of license.

    The core element is basically saying “I have released this code as opened source and anyone can use, no one else is allowed to claim it’s theirs and own it.”

    Depending on the type of license there are often additional caveats. Like saying anyone who releases updated or altered versions have to release them under the same license or that people using it can not sell it.