The following licenses have been rejected for certification as compliant with the Copyfree Standard Definition. Explanations of reasons for rejection may not be complete in all cases. For more information about copyfree policy, policies that conflict with copyfree policy, and the requirements for copyfree certification, see the pages referencing copyfree, copyleft, and copyright policies, as well as the Copyfree Standard Definition.
-
Condition 3 of both the Apache License 1.0 and Apache License 1.1 violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Section 4, subsections 2 and 4 of the Apache License 2.0 violate point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Apple Public Source Licenses
-
Section 2.1(c) violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Section 2.2(b), (c), and (d) violate point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
-
Section 2.2(b) violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Sections 2.2(c) and (d) violate point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
-
Artistic License
Version 1.0 and the Clarified Artistic License:
Section 3 violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Sections 4 and 5 violate point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 violate point 4. Free Combination of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Section 8 violates point 1. Free Use of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
-
- Conditions B and C of the Distribution section violate point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
CNRI License Agreement for Python 1.6.1
- Section 3 is a requirement of notification clause that violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Common Public License (CPL)
- Section 3, subsection "iv" violates point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Distribution.
Creative Commons Licenses
Apart from CC0, the closest Creative Commons license to compliance with the Copyfree Standard Definition is CC-BY. All others are noncommercial, share-alike (copyleft), or non-derivative licenses -- or some combination of these.
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) asserts "You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License." This imposes restrictions on technological mechanisms of copying and redistribution. Depending on whether the prohibited technologies are integral to a derivative version or distinct from it, this violates one or both of points 3. Free Modification and Derivation and 4. Free Combination of the Copyfree Standard Definition. You may find the offending text in section 4a of the Attribution License 3.0.
-
- Section 3, subsection "iv" violates point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Distribution.
-
- This license is merely a reference to the GNU General Public License plus an exception to the GPL's heritability requirements for works that make use of the covered work as a library.
-
Section 3.2 Availability of Source Code requires source code distribution terms equivalent to those of the GPL, violating point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Section 3.3 Description of Modifications violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Further violations of the CSD may apply.
-
- Section 2. Redistribution contains the clause "any additions, deletions or changes to the original files must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation," which violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
GNU Affero General Public License
- The reasons the GNU GPL (see below) was rejected for copyfree certification are exacerbated by the Affero GPL's strengthened copyleft terms.
GNU Free Documentation License
- "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." Restrictions on digital distribution mechanisms constitute a violation of point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
-
- Explaining all the reasons this copyleft license has been rejected could fill a book. Start with the fact it is a strongly copyleft license, violating points 2. Free Distribution and 4. Free Combination of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
GNU Lesser General Public License
- The GNU LGPL mitigates some of the terms of the GNU GPL for certain use cases, but still violates points 2. Free Distribution and 4. Free Combination of the Copyfree Standard Definition outside of those use cases.
-
- Section 3 violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
IBM Public License Version 1.0
- Section 3. Requirements (Subsection a. iv.) of this license violates point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Section 6, subsections "a" and "b" are bookkeeping clauses that violate point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Section 6, subsection "d", and section 7, violate points 2. Free Distribution and 4. Free Combination of the Copyfree Standard Definition by placing restrictions on conditions of distribution.
Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL)
Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL)
Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL)
Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL)
Mozilla Public License
-
Section 3.2 Availability of Source Code requires source code distribution terms equivalent to those of the GPL, violating point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Section 3.3 Description of Modifications violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Further violations of the CSD may apply.
-
Section 3.3 Distribution of Executable Form requires source code distribution terms equivalent to those of the GPL, violating point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Further violations of the CSD may apply.
-
-
Under point 1 of the OpenContent License, "You may not charge a fee for the OC itself. You may not charge a fee for the sole service of providing access to and/or use of the OC via a network (e.g. the Internet), whether it be via the world wide web, FTP, or any other method." This violates point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition by placing restrictions on conditions of distribution.
Under point 2(a), "You must cause the modified content to carry prominent notices stating that you changed it, the exact nature and content of the changes, and the date of any change." This violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by imposing requirements on the form of modification external to the license itself.
-
- Under section IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS, "4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified." This violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Open Source License for Oracle Berkeley DB
- "Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code must either be included in the distribution or be available for no more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be freely redistributable under reasonable conditions." These copyleft-style requirements for redistribution violate points 2. Free Distribution and 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to redistribution and modification.
Original BSD License (4-Clause)
- Section 3 is a requirement of notification clause that violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
-
"3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file" Required modifications and notifications to the licensed work violate point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Additional conditions in subsections of the Perl Artistic License sections 3 and 4, and in section 5, place restrictions on redistribution that violate point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
-
- Section 6 is an advertising clause that violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
Python Software Foundation License Agreement for Python 2.7.2
- Section 3 is a requirement of notification clause that violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
SIL Open Font License
- Point 2 of "Permissions & Conditions" prohibits certain types of distribution apart from other software, thus violating point 2. Free Distribution of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
-
- This license, which is erroneously identified in various places as a "New BSD License" or "BSD license", is in fact the MIT/X11 License with the addition of an advertising clause that violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modification.
-
- The Vim License specifies a number of restrictions on distribution of modified or extended versions.
W3C Software Notice and License
- The third required inclusion, "Notice of any changes or modifications to the files, including the date changes were made," is a requirement of notification clause that violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition by specifying conditions (beyond licensing) that must apply to modifications.
-
- The wxWindows License is merely a reference to the GNU Lesser General Public License plus an exception to the LGPL's heritability requirements for binary compiled works that make use of the covered work as a library.
-
- Zlib License restriction 2 contains the requirement "Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such," which could reasonably be interpreted by the courts in a manner that violates Copyfree Standard Definition point 3. Free Modification and Derivation. Alternatively, it may be interpreted as merely requiring that a derivative or modified work be renamed, given the concluding clause, "must not be misrepresented as being the original software." Until such issues are clarified, particularly as to the intent of the license authors and the legal applicability of these terms as explained by relevant legal professionals, the Zlib License must be regarded as contrary in some respects to the requirements of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Zope Public License
Version 1.0 sections 4, 6, and 7 violate point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Version 1.1 sections 3, 5, and 6 violate point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Versions 2.0 and 2.1 section 5 violates point 3. Free Modification and Derivation of the Copyfree Standard Definition.
Please submit an appeal if you have reason to dispute a license rejection.