Historicamente, as licenças GPL são utilizadas por projetos de software livre e de código aberto. Além dos programas de software produzidos pelo Projeto GNU, o núcleo Linux é um exemplo de uso da licença, valendo-se da versão 2 da GPL.
The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as provided in LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0, with an explicit syscall exception described in LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file.
Because GPL v2 and v3 are incompatible, it is illegal to release Linux under v3 with any contributions licensed under v2 only. Second, Torvalds personally does not like GPL v3. He particularly dislikes certain provisions (like anti-tivoization), which are not restrictions he wants to impose on users of his software.
Software projects licensed with the optional "or later" clause include the GNU Project, while the Linux kernel, for instance, is licensed under GPLv2 only.
Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for
Is Apache 2.0 a GPL?
The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation agree that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software license, compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3, meaning that code under GPLv3 and Apache License 2.0 can be combined, as long as the resulting software is licensed under the ...
GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program's contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided them a copy won't sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to, for patent infringement.
There is a risk that simply including or using bash4+ could infect the system with GPLv3 compliance requirements, forcing Apple to publish their proprietary source code. To Apple, this is likely seen as an unacceptable risk no matter the cost and therefore bash is replaced with zsh.
The open-source nature of Linux also protects it from viruses. Like most types of open-source software, Linux has a community of developers who are constantly working to optimize and improve it. It's not a commercially sold or licensed OS. Rather, Linux is free and open source.
The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) is a BSD-style, permissive software license which is compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). Its primary use is for distribution of the Python project software and its documentation.
The VirtualBox base package contains the full VirtualBox source code and platform binaries and is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 3. You can distribute and modify the base package, provided that you distribute all modifications under the GPLv3 version as well.
If the goal is to maximize community collaboration and ensure that improvements benefit everyone, then consider using the GPL, but if the intent is widespread adoption and flexibility in how others use the code (including proprietary applications), then the MIT license may be preferable.
The GNU General Public License (GNU, GPL, or GPL) is a free software license originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, which guarantees that users are free to use, share, and modify the software without paying anyone for it.
OpenJDK (Open Java Development Kit) is a free and open source implementation of the Java programming language. It is the result of an effort Sun Microsystems began in 2006. The implementation is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) with a linking exception.
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
The GPL v3 license permits users of the code to: Use the code for commercial purposes: Like GPL v2, GPL v3 imposes no conditions on the internal use of the software.
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.
Back in 2012, Torvalds gave a slightly more detailed explanation about why he doesn't use GitHub for pull requests: “github throws away all the relevant information, like having even a valid email address for the person asking me to pull. The diffstat is also deficient and useless.
Linus Torvalds thinks Java and C++ are horrible programming languages. So, which language does he recommend for programming? He prefers C over C++ for multiple reasons, and some of them are very valid.
Torvalds' philosophy was that if he made the software available for free downloading, including the source code, anyone with knowledge of and interest in computer programming could modify the system and ultimately make it better, and/or modify it for their own specific purposes.
The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, "used by") a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is licensed under a license of GPL family or other licenses.
It's always possible to use GPLed code to write software that implements DRM. However, if someone does that with code protected by GPLv3, section 3 says that the system will not count as an effective technological “protection” measure.
Linux is licensed with the GNU General Public License (GPL), a document devised for the GNU project by the Free Software Foundation. The GPL allows anybody to redistribute, and even sell, a product covered by the GPL, as long as the recipient is allowed to rebuild an exact copy of the binary files from source.
