Talk:List of FSF-approved software licenses

QT's license

How about some updates here? I am not sure if it still uses the Q Public License, but it certainly also was GPL and recently LGPL, anyone with better knowledge to do the edit? Vexorian (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding examples that use the licences

The list would be better if each licence was followed by some examples of software released under that licence. That way the article would add value rather than just replicating what FSF has published. Gronky 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if all the red links were linked either to a relevent article or to a copy of the article text too. NicM 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

What would it take to get Featured status

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_list%3F

It seems it would be possible to fulfil all the criteria to make this a "Featured list". Any suggestions on further improvements to the current layout to make it even more state-of-the-art? Gronky 13:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that most of the cells are empty and there are far too many red links. If there isn't an article, the license name should link to a copy of the license. In addition, it might be nice to use {{yes}} and {{no}} and add a longer intro. NicM 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

"License of X" is clumsy, they would all be better as "X's license." And the list needs to be sorted. NicM 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Clarification of GPL version

Has this article been updated for GPLv3? If so, the header should expressly explain what the column means, as in, "GPLv3 compatible". It might also be good to have a "GPLv2 compatible" column since there is loads of code out there licensed under the GPLv2. DaveWF 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• The only license that I know of that is compatible with GPLv3 and not v2 is the Apache license, which is noted in the GPL compatible column. (The upcoming AGPLv3 is also only compatible with GPLv3 but that has not been released yet) -- Gudeldar 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes section

If anyone can add it, the notes section would be a helpful place to include rationale as to why something is GPL-incompatible if there's a clear enough reason. DaveWF 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyleft

How should we translate the FSF's copyleft evaluation into our list? For example, the Netscape Public License is described as "not a strong copyleft". Should we interpret that simply as "no"? — or change the copyleft parameter to reflect a similar degree of variability? Feezo (Talk) 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Misspeeled word in the title

The word "license" is misspelled as "licence" in the title. I'm thinking it might be best to move this article to the correct spelling and redirect the misspelling to the correct spelling. 67.177.42.74 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the attention to detail, but in this case you've got a false positive. Licence is the correct spelling for the noun, license is the verb. Many people make the mistake of spelling the noun with an "s" because one country in the world does so, the USA, but they're the exception. --Gronky 07:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but here is what I found according to Wikipedia policy. All of the items on the page are, AFAIK, officially spelled "license" (for instance, the GNU General Public License); and license outranks licence on Google at least 5 to 1. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Guile?

Isn't GNU_Guile a software under the GNU LGPL license? Why is it listed as a license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.36.36 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GNU Guile uses a special exception in addition to the GPL/LGPL, so its terms are a bit different. The exception is there to ensure that Guile can be used to compile/interpret both free and non-free software without implying any licence obligations for the code the output. GCC has a similar exception. --Gronky 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into comparison of free software licences?

I just found an article which contains the content of list of FSF approved software licences and open source licenses, and the data is even formatted nicely. Seems like a good idea to merge these two articles into comparison of free software licences. Yes, no? --Gronky 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. AFAIK, that article is a comparison of free software licenses, but not necessarily FSF-approved ones. On the other hand, we could try to match the formatting for the two articles. That one does look better. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BSD compatible?

A columns stating which are BSD compatible would be important I believe. It IS an extremely popular license, and many are not compatible. Does anyone have any source for this? HuGo_87 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the "GPL compatible?" column is the connection of that license to the FSF. I know it's popular for the anti-copyleft BSD crowd to horn in on every discussion where the GPL is mentioned, but it simply isn't warranted here (or anywhere else, IMO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NetBSD status severely outdated?

The assesment of NetBSD seems to go back to an evaluation of Stallman in 1997. Afaik NetBSD long since relicensed since to a 2/3 clause mix: http://www.netbsd.org/about/redistribution.html#why2clause 82.161.147.71 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)