The Unlicense is a public domain dedication. A work released under the Unlicense is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest extent permitted by law, and also comes with an additional lax license that helps cover any cases where the dedication is inadequate. If you want to release your work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. CC0 also provides a public domain dedication with a fallback license, and is more thorough and mature than the Unlicense.
This is a free software license, partially copyleft but not really. It is compatible with the GPL, by an explicit conversion clause. GPL-covered software can be distributed in compliance with this license's terms: it allows distributors to exercise all of the rights granted by the GPL, while fulfilling all its conditions.
We do not recommend this license. If you want a lax permissive license for a small program, we recommend the X11 license. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on using a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2. It is a weak copyleft, even weaker than the LGPL, so we recommend it only in special circumstances. Older versions of XFree86 used the same license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.
This is a fine license for a small program. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2. This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL. Please note that this license is incompatible with version 2 of the GPL, because of its requirements that apply to all documentation in the distribution that contain acknowledgements. There are currently several variants of XFree86, and only some of them use this license.
Some continue to use the X11 license. The new section, 2 d , covers the distribution of application programs through web services or computer networks. Recent versions contain contract clauses similar to the Open Software License , and should be avoided for the same reasons.
This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license. It has a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL, such as strong prohibitions on the use of Apache-related names.
This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with an advertising clause. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this license. More explanation. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. If you want to use a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license , the X11 license or the Expat license.
Even better, for a substantial program, use the Apache 2. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license. The credit requirements in section 5. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. It is based on the Mozilla Public License version 1, and is incompatible with the GPL for the same reasons: it has several requirements for modified versions that do not exist in the GPL.
It also requires you to publish the source of the program if you allow others to use it. Recent versions of Condor from 6. Only older versions of Condor use this license. The Condor Public License is a free software license. If it made compliance an actual condition of the license, it would not be a free software license. The only change is that the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patent infringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'd program.
If an initial contributor releases a specific piece of code and designates GNU GPL version 2 or later as a secondary license, that provides explicit compatibility with those GPL versions for that code. By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL's, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License and the Common Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft.
Thus, developers can't rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft. To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of code which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft.
This is a free software license as far as it goes. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an invitation to buy some. Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing software under this license: you should first consider whether the licensor might aim to lure you into patent infringement.
If you conclude that the program is bait for a patent trap, it would be wise to avoid the program. It is possible that the pertinent patents have expired. Depending on whether Fraunhofer still has active patents covering the work, the software might be a trap now, or not. Of course, any program is potentially threatened by patents, and the only way to end that is to change patent law to make software safe from patents. The license is a free software license, incompatible with the GPL.
It permits relicensing under a certain class of licenses, those which include all the requirements of the Jabber license. Therefore, it is not compatible. We have not written a full analysis of this license, but it is a free software license, with less stringent requirements on distribution than LPPL 1. It is still incompatible with the GPL because some modified versions must include a copy of or pointer to an unmodified version. This license is an incomplete statement of the distribution terms for LaTeX.
As far as it goes, it is a free software license, but incompatible with the GPL because it has many requirements that are not in the GPL. This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name.
With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program nonfree. This condition may cause trouble with some major modifications. For example, if you wanted to port an LPPL-covered work to another system that lacked a similar remapping facility, but still required users to request this file by name, you would need to implement a remapping facility too to keep this software free.
That would be a nuisance, but the fact that a license would make code nonfree if transplanted into a very different context does not make it nonfree in the original context. For this reason, it may take some careful checking to produce a version of LaTeX that is free software.
The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold this claim, but it is not good for people to start making the claim. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license.
We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason. It's based on the Microsoft Public License , and has an additional clause to make the copyleft just a little bit stronger.
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license , it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the MPL 1. However, MPL 1. MPL version 2. See that entry for details.
This is a free software license that is essentially the same as the Mozilla Public License version 1. We urge you not to use the NOSL for this reason. It consists of the Mozilla Public License version 1.
Of course, they do not give you permission to use their code in the analogous way. We urge you not to use the NPL. This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few requirements in sections 4 and 5 that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license. The Open Software License is a free software license. Recent versions of the Open Software License have a term which requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to the license.
This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the license and would subject you to possible termination of the license. Thus, the Open Software License makes it very difficult to develop software using the ordinary tools of free software development. For this reason, and because it is incompatible with the GPL, we recommend that no version of the OSL be used for any software.
We urge you not to use the Open Software License for software you write. You must follow both. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache 1 license.
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. Section 5 makes the license incompatible with the GPL. This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free software license.
It also causes major practical inconvenience, because modified sources can only be distributed as patches. We recommend that you avoid using the QPL for anything that you write, and use QPL-covered software packages only when absolutely necessary. You can resolve the conflict for your program by adding a notice like this to it:.
You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the program. This is a free software license, not a strong copyleft, which is incompatible with the GNU GPL because of details rather than any major policy. Please do not confuse this with the Sun Community Source License , which is not a free software license.
This is a copyleft free software license, incompatible with the GPL. It is incompatible because it places extra restrictions on redistribution of modified versions that contradict the redistribution requirements in the GPL.
It has a copyleft similar to the one found in the Mozilla Public License. It also has a choice of law clause in section 7. These features both make the license GPL-incompatible. This license is used by one part of PHP4. This license is identical to the Yahoo! Public License 1. Our comments there apply here as well; this is a GPL-incompatible, partial copyleft free software license.
This is a lax, fairly permissive non-copyleft free software license with practical problems like those of the original BSD license, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the ZPL version 1 for software you write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as previous versions of Zope.
The following licenses do not qualify as free software licenses. Of course, we urge you to avoid using nonfree software licenses, and to avoid nonfree software in general.
There is no way we could list all the known nonfree software licenses here; after all, every proprietary software company has its own. We focus here on licenses that are often mistaken for free software licenses but are, in fact, not free software licenses.
We have provided links to these licenses when we can do so without violating our general policy: that we do not make links to sites that promote, encourage or facilitate the use of nonfree software packages. The last thing we want to do is give any nonfree program some gratis publicity that might encourage more people to use it.
For the same reason, we have avoided naming the programs for which a license is used, unless we think that for specific reasons it won't backfire. If source code does not carry a license to give users the four essential freedoms, then unless it has been explicitly and validly placed in the public domain, it is not free software. Some developers think that code with no license is automatically in the public domain. That is not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightable works are copyrighted by default.
This includes programs. Absent a license to grant users freedom, they don't have any. In some countries, users that download code with no license may infringe copyright merely by compiling it or running it. In order for a program to be free, its copyright holders must explicitly grant users the four essential freedoms. The document with which they do so is called a free software license. This is what free software licenses are for. Some countries allow authors to put code in the public domain, but that requires explicit action.
If you wish to do that, the method we recommend is to use CC0 , which also works in other countries by putting on a license that is more or less equivalent to public domain.
However, in most cases it is better to copyleft your code to assure that freedom reaches all users of the code. When you upload software to oldversion.
For every field that is filled out correctly, points will be rewarded, some fields are optional but the more you provide the more you will get rewarded! So why not upload a peice software today, share with others and get rewarded! Welcome Guest, Login Register. Get Updates on TrueCrypt Tweet. TrueCrypt 32, Downloads. Do you have software version that is not currently listed?
Inik Mar 3 This is one of the top encryption tools on Windows, and it's great to see it on the Mac. In my testing it was stable and performed fairly well. These limitations limit the usefulness of TC, especially compared to other options on the Mac. Specifically: Hidden volumes are not supported, and therefore there is no standard of plausible deniability. The fact that there is encrypted information and the quantity of it is obvious to an adversary.
There is no "traveler" mode, so you cannot keep encrypted volumes on a portable disk without installing MacFUSE and TrueCrypt on each system you need to access it from. There is no encryption of the boot drive. However, external drives can be fully encrypted. It only supports the FAT32 filesystem. So you have to deal with. This also creates a potential security weak point that the TC authors would not necessarily be in a position to correct.
Given all of this, Disk Utility's encrypted disk images are, in many ways, superior to TrueCrypt. TC is more difficult to use it's distinctly un-Mac-like and less widely supported on the Mac. While the encryption is stronger bit encryption vs. There is also some security in TC being an open-source project. Apple's implementation of secure disk images has not had nearly the review that TC's has. The one real advantage of TC is that its encrypted disks are cross platform.
Dave-Burbank Feb 10 TrueCrypt has been around for a while on the Windows platform. I first learned about it when the great "Security Now" podcast devoted an entire episode to it. This is great! I can now use these encrypted flash drives on all three platforms. TrueCrypt can encrypt entire volumes, partitions, or you can create an encrypted file kind of like a disk image onto which you can store your most important data.
There is so much that TrueCrypt does. I have only scratched the surface. Listen to the Security Now podcast on TrueCrypt. The TrueCrypt is extremely thorough, but needs to be completely updated for Mac and Linux. Enigmah Feb 8 Kp-gores Feb 8 Leopard, PPC.
TrueCrypt creates a volume, but when trying to mount it I get an error message from hdiutil telling me there is no filesystem. Please, help. Rloomans Feb 8 The description is wrong Pyle Feb 7 No extra file extensions are added. However, when installed the actual application's architecture is wrong and the app will not run.
Therefore I cannot write a review because the application will not run. Bugdave Feb 7 Make sure you remove the ". Their servers seems to be adding the suffix for no good reason. That is why people cant seem to open it. Again, the file name should really look like "TrueCrypt 5. Juancab Feb 7 Don't bother downloading it if you use Leopard, for some reason both the PPC and Intel Leopard disk images appear to be corrupted. Pmcarrion Feb 7 What about Knox?
Show more. App requirements:. Safety scan is ensured by Intego. Similar apps. GPG Suite. Vote to improve the quality of this list.
0コメント