如何Apache 2.0许可从GPL有什么不同？ [英] How does Apache 2.0 license differ from GPL?

问题描述

我不知道很多有关以外，它是非常严格的，以任何人想要在任何地方使用GPL接近封闭源代码code等完整的GPL许可证。如何Apache 2.0许可与GPL和其他许可证LGPL一样，麻省理工学院等比较？

I don't know much about the full GPL license other than that it's very restrictive to anyone wanting to use GPL anywhere near closed-source code. How does Apache 2.0 license compare with GPL and other license like LGPL, MIT, etc?

推荐答案

在Apache许可证是很喜欢在其范围内的BSD许可证。这是pretty洒脱，你并不需要分配一个覆盖来源$ C ​​$ C，你不必担心感染派生作品;你只需要确保包括他们的许可。

The Apache license is quite like the BSD license in its scope. It's pretty free and easy, you're not required to distribute the source code of a covered work, and you don't have to worry about it "infecting" a derived work; you just need to be sure to include their license.

的（全）GPL经常被误解;我遇到它的许多misinter pretations。要正确理解它，你真的要读它，并认为它（这还不是所有的长），但夫妇要点的：

The (full) GPL is often misunderstood; I've come across many misinterpretations of it. To properly understand it, you really have to read it and think about it (it's not all that long), but a couple of salient points:

• 如果您使用GPL code链接您code，你的code（在大部分如果不是全部的情况下）是受版权法认为要成为的衍生作品的那code。当出现这种情况时，GPL感染你的code：如果你要发布这样一个联合的工作，您必须在GPL或GPL兼容的许可条款下这么做


• 发行其作品在GPL有与它相关的一些非常具体的规则。如果你发布GPL二进制文件，则必须分发源$ C ​​$ c。与他们一起或允许源$ C ​​$ C在同一时间下载。现在，没有什么阻止你授权的您的下其他一些GPL兼容许可证的贡献，但合并（二进制）的工作被认为是由GPL的范围之内。


• 如果您创建它们互不兼容的许可证联合制定出独立的部分，你不能合法在所有分配相结合的工作。 （但是，小心你可能还分发不同来源，有你的用户结合起来自己。）


• 您可以分发GPL许可code充钱。没有什么在prevents这个许可证。但是，你不能做的是从它重新分配prevent任何人。这样做的实际效果是，如果你想使用GPL许可的code在一个商业产品，你必须非常小心，你是怎么做到的;你不能让你的源$ C ​​$ C私有的，你不能prevent你赠送免费更多副本所收取的费用为您的软件副本谁的人。 （当然，你可以支持充电，这也是自由软件世界的许多商业模式的一个特点。）


• 如果你从来没有发布您的组合作品 - 说你要创建仅在贵公司使用的内部应用程序 - 这是没有问题的，你的公司没有分配工作，所以结合code，没有问题不兼容的许可证或者其来源必须保密。


• 还有一些其他条款涵盖了自动专利权和tivoization。

• If you link your code with GPL code, your code (in most if not all circumstances) is considered by copyright law to become a derivative work of that code. When that is the case, the GPL "infects" your code: if you ever want to distribute such a combined work, you must do so under the GPL or GPL-compatible licensing terms.
• Distributing a work under the GPL has some quite specific rules associated with it. If you distribute GPL binaries, you must either distribute the source code along with them or allow the source code to be downloaded at the same time. Now, there's nothing stopping you from licensing your contribution under some other GPL-compatible license, but the combined (binary) work is considered to be covered by the GPL.
• If you create a combined work out of separate parts with licenses which are incompatible with each other, you cannot legally distribute the combined work at all. (However, with care you can probably still distribute the disparate sources and have your users combine it themselves.)
• You can charge money for distributing GPL-licensed code. There's nothing in the license that prevents this. However, what you can't do is prevent anybody from redistributing it. The net effect of this is that if you want to use GPL-licensed code in a commercial product, you have to be very careful how you do it; you can't keep your source code private, and you can't prevent the person who you charged money for a copy of your software from giving away further copies for free. (Of course, you can charge for support, and this is a feature of many business models in the free software world.)
• If you never distribute your combined work - say you want to create an internal application for use only within your company - that's no problem, your company isn't distributing the work and so there is no problem combining code with incompatible licenses or whose source must be kept confidential.
• There are other clauses covering automatic patent rights and tivoization.

有关进一步阅读你可能想在读了：

For further reading you might want to read up on:

• GPL库例外


• 如何LGPL与GPL不同

这篇关于如何Apache 2.0许可从GPL有什么不同？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！