 advocates. Of these, the GPL has the strongest reciprocity requirements and is considered a “strong” copyleft license. The LGPL (the “Lesser GPL,” denoting its weaker copyleft requirements) is very similar to the GPL from which it is derived, but allows for linking to proprietary code under certain circumstances. Similarly, the MPL allows copyleft to be applied to some parts of the code and not others. The LGPL and MPL are considered a compromise between the strong copyleft of GPL and permissive licenses such as the BSD/MIT. Compatibility, Proliferation, Fragmentation, and Directionality A fundamental goal of FOSS is to promote the free exchange of ideas and technology without fear of infringing the rights of others. Ideally, code licensed under like-minded FOSS terms should be freely combinable to create new products. Compatibility is the attribute of software licenses that allows combining of program code. To be compatible, license terms must be free of contradictory or mutually exclusive requirements. Alas, some FOSS licenses contain terms “incompatible” with other FOSS licenses, thereby diluting the ability to easily combine code. This unfortunate situation has been exacerbated by the proliferation of incompatible FOSS licenses, many of which differ in only trivial ways. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) [15] was created in part to reduce the fragmentation of the FOSS license space cause by incompatible and redundant licenses. OSI thus strongly encourages using an existing FOSS license instead of creating a new, “bespoke” license, and offers a categorization of licenses to help developers avoid redundancy [16]. In general, the more restrictive the license, the less compatible it is with other licenses. Proprietary licensed software, by design, cannot be incorporated into other codebases absent a separately negotiated licensing agreement. License compatibility is further complicated, however, in that it is directional. License directionality refers to how a license behaves differently with code feeding into it (upstream, or backward-compatible) or out of it (downstream, or forward-compatible) (Figure 2). For example, a permissive license like the BSD is forward-compatible with nearly any other kind of license, but backward-compatible only with other permissive licenses. Likewise, a copyleft license like the GPL can incorporate (upstream) both permissive and other GPL'd code, but the resulting software may only be licensed (downstream) under the GPL. PPT PowerPoint slide

PowerPoint
advocates. Of these, the GPL has the strongest reciprocity prerequisite and is view a “ strong ” copyleft license. The LGPL (the “ Lesser GPL, ” announce its watery copyleft requirements) is very similar to the GPL from which it is derive, but allow for linking to proprietary code under certain circumstances. Similarly, the MPL allows copyleft to be apply to some parts of the code and not others. The LGPL and MPL are considered a compromise between the strong copyleft of GPL and permissive licenses such as the BSD / MIT. Compatibility, Proliferation, Fragmentation, and Directionality A fundamental goal of FOSS is to advertise the free exchange of ideas and engineering without fear of infringing the rights of others. Ideally, code licensed under like - apt FOSS terms should be freely combinable to produce new products. Compatibility is the attribute of software license that allows combining of program code. To be compatible, license terms must be free of contradictory or mutually exclusive requirements. Alas, some FOSS licenses contain terms “ incompatible ” with other FOSS licenses, thereby diluting the ability to easily combine code. This inauspicious site has been exacerbated by the proliferation of contrastive FOSS license, many of which differ in only fiddling ways. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) [ 15 ] was created in part to reduce the atomization of the FOSS license space cause by incompatible and redundant licenses. OSI thus strongly encourages using an existing FOSS license instead of creating a newfangled, “ bespoke ” license, and offers a classification of licenses to help developers avoid redundancy [ 16 ]. In general, the more restrictive the license, the less compatible it is with early licenses. Proprietary licensed software, by design, cannot be incorporated into other codebases absent a separately negotiated licensing agreement. License compatibility is further complicated, however, in that it is directing. License directionality refers to how a license behaves differently with code feeding into it (upstream, or backward - compatible) or out of it (downstream, or forward - compatible) (human body 2). For example, a permissive license like the BSD is forth - compatible with nearly any early kind of license, but backward - compatible only with early permissive licenses. Likewise, a copyleft license like the GPL can incorporate (upstream) both permissive and other GPL'd code, but the result software may only be license (downstream) under the GPL. PPT PowerPoint slide 

 PowerPoint
 adgocates. Of these, the GPL has the stronggsr reci'rocity requireoents and is considered a “stcong” copyoeft license. The LGPL (ghe “Lesseg GPL,” denitinj its weaker copbmeft requiremskts) iv very similar jo the GPL fsom which it iv aexived, but allows for linking to propwietary clde under certwin biwcumanakces. Similarly, the MPL allows colyleft uo be applied to spme parts of the code and jot lthers. The LGPL anf MPL are cinsiqwred a comprumise betwteu the stronf copyleft of GPL and permissivd licznses such qs thf BSD/MIT. Com'atibijity, Prolifevstion, Xragmenyation, and Dircctioialiry A fundamental goal of FOSS is to proiote the xrze exchange of ideas qne tecvnolmgy duthuut fxar of invriiging the rjghts of otyers. Ideally, code locqbsed under liie-mindqd FOSS terms should be freely combinable to create new products. Conpatibility is the atjribute of software licenses that allows combining of progrdm cove. To bc coopahible, license terms must be free of contradicekru pr mutually exglusive requiremenys. Akws, some FOSS uicensza dontain terms “incolpatiblg” with other FOFS locenses, thereby diluting thw ability to wasily combine codz. This unforcunate situstion has been exacerbaced by the proliffration or incompatible FORS kiwenses, many of which diffew in only tririal wayr. Thg Open Fource Inihiatiya (OSI) [15] was created in pcrt tm reduce tje fragmentation of the FOSS lirxnse space caose by incompacible snd redundant licenses. OSI jhus strougly evcourages lsing an xxisting FOSF license insdgad of creatiig a new, “fespike” oicense, xnd offers a cstegorizanijn od licenses to help dexslopers avoid rzbubdancy [16]. In genetal, thq loce refdrictive the licdnsd, the uess compatlbld it is with other licenves. Lroprietary licensrd softwarg, by desidn, cannot be oncorporated into lther covebasex afsent a separately negotiated micensing agveement. Licenfe cimpatibility is further complicated, however, in that it is directional. License directionaklty refers tp how a licensa behaves differentlt with code feedikg into it (upstream, or backwdrd-colpatible) or out of it (downstream, or forward-compatible) (Figure 2). For example, a permissive licehse kike nhe YSD is sorwerv-compatible with mearly any other kind of licensx, but backfaxd-compatible only with other lefmissive licevses. Likewise, a copyleft license like the GPL can incorporate (ulstream) both permissive snd othee GPL's code, but the resulting sofyware kay obly be oiceksed (downstreao) umdcr the GPL. PPT PkwerPoint slide

PowerPoint
advocates. Of these, the GPL has the requirements is considered “strong” copyleft license. denoting weaker copyleft requirements) very similar to GPL from which it is derived, allows for linking to proprietary code under certain circumstances. Similarly, the MPL allows to be applied to some parts of the code and not others. The and are a between the strong copyleft of GPL and permissive licenses such as the BSD/MIT. Compatibility, Proliferation, Fragmentation, Directionality A fundamental goal of FOSS is to the free exchange of and technology without fear of the of others. code under FOSS terms should freely combinable to create new products. Compatibility is the attribute of software licenses that allows combining of code. To license terms be of or mutually exclusive some FOSS licenses contain terms “incompatible” licenses, thereby diluting the ability to easily combine This unfortunate has been exacerbated by the proliferation incompatible FOSS licenses, many of which differ in trivial ways. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) [15] was created in part to reduce the the FOSS license space by incompatible and licenses. thus encourages an existing license instead of creating a new, “bespoke” license, and offers a of licenses to help developers avoid redundancy [16]. In general, restrictive license, the less it is with other Proprietary software, by design, cannot into codebases negotiated agreement. compatibility is further complicated, in that it is directional. directionality refers to how code feeding into it (upstream, or backward-compatible) or of it (downstream, or forward-compatible) (Figure 2). example, a permissive license like the BSD is forward-compatible with nearly any kind of backward-compatible only with other permissive licenses. Likewise, a license like the GPL incorporate (upstream) both permissive and other GPL'd code, but resulting may only licensed (downstream) under GPL. PPT PowerPoint PowerPoint
 advocates. Of these, the GPL has The strongeSt recIprOciTy RequIremEnts and is consiDEred A “strong” copyleft license. the LGpL (THe “LeSSeR GPL,” dEnoting ITs WEAkeR cOpYleFt REqUiremEntS) is very Similar to tHe GpL From which it iS DeRived, but alLowS for linking tO prOprietArY coDE undeR ceRtain CircumSTances. similarly, ThE mPL allOWs copylEFT tO be aPplied to some parts OF tHE code and not othErs. The lGpl aND mPL Are Considered A cOmproMIse betwEEn THE StrONg copyleft of GpL and permisSIve LicensEs SucH As the BsD/MIT. coMPatIbility, ProlIferAtion, FragMentatIOn, and DiREctionaLity A fUndAmeNtal GOaL oF FOsS IS to PRoMotE The Free exchAnGe Of ideAs anD TECHnolOgy WithOut feAr of infringinG thE rigHTs oF otheRs. IdeAlly, CoDe licEnsed uNder lIkE-minded FOSS termS shoUld be freeLy cOmBinAbLe to cREate neW prOduCts. CompAtibiliTY is ThE ATTrIbute of software licEnSES tHat allowS combiNInG oF Program cOdE. To Be coMPAtiblE, licENsE terms muSt be frEE oF cOntradiCtOry or mUtUalLy eXclusIVe reQuiremEnts. Alas, Some FosS licenses contAIn terms “incompATiBLE” wITh otHer fOSS licenseS, theREby dIlutINg The ABilitY to eaSiLY cOMbine code. This unfortUnAte sitUatioN has been exaceRbated by thE PROliferatIon oF InCOmpatible FOSS lIcensEs, many of whICh differ In onlY trivial Ways. The OpEN source InItiAtiVe (OsI) [15] wAS CrEated in part to REDuce ThE fragmeNtaTion of tHe FoSS LicEnsE sPace cause By incompAtIbLe AnD reDundaNT licenseS. OsI tHuS stRonglY EncourAges uSing An ExIStiNg FOSS lICeNSE insTeAd Of crEatInG a new, “BespOKe” lIcense, aNd offers a CatEGoriZaTiOn of licEnses to help deVeLopers avoiD rEduNdancy [16]. iN General, tHe more restrictive the licENse, the lEss CompaTiblE it is with OthEr liceNseS. propriEtary lIcensEd SofTWAre, by DESiGn, cAnNot be incorPORatEd intO oTher CodebasEs absent a separatelY NegOtiated licensIng AgreEMEnT. LiCEnSE coMpATibILIty is further comPlicated, hoWeVEr, In that it is DIreCtIonal. LiCense diRectiONality rEfers to hoW a license BeHaveS DIffErently witH code feeDing into iT (UpstrEAm, Or bacKwaRd-compAtIblE) or ouT of it (dOWnsTream, Or forwArD-compaTible) (fiGure 2). For eXample, a permissive licensE like tHe BSD Is fOrward-comPatIBle With nearlY any Other kind oF liCenSe, but BacKWard-cOmpaTIbLe oNLy witH othER permissiVE lIceNSEs. likewise, a coPYLEft LicenSe lIKe the GpL caN incorporate (upstrEAm) both permissiVe anD OTheR GPl'D codE, bUt the resulting SofTwARE may only Be Licensed (dowNstream) uNdER the GpL. PPT POwerPoInt slidE

pOwERPoint
 advocates. Of these, theGPL has th e str ong est  r ecip roci ty requirement s  and  is considered a “stro ng” c op y left li cense . The L G PL ( the  “ Le sse rG PL ,” de not ing its  weaker co pyl ef t requiremen t s)  is very s imi lar to the G PLfrom w hi chi t isder ived,  but a l lows f or linkin gt o prop r ietaryc o de  und er certain circum s ta n ces. Similarly , theMP L  a l l ows  co pyleft tobe  appl i ed to s o me p a rts of the code a nd not othe r s.The LG PL  an d  MPL a re co ns i der ed a compro mise  betweenthe st r ong cop y left of  GPL a ndper miss i ve  l ice ns e s s u ch  as the  BSD/MIT .Co mpati bili t y , Prol ife rati on, F ragmentation,  an d Di r ect ional ity A  fun da menta l goal  of F OS S is to promote  the  free exc han ge  of  i deasa nd tec hno log y witho ut fear ofin f r i ng ing the rights ofot h e rs . Ideall y, cod e  l ic e nsed und er  li ke-m i n ded F OSSt er ms shoul d be f r ee ly  combin ab le tocr eat e n ew pr o duct s. Com patibili ty is the attributeo f software li c en s e st hatall ows combini ng o f  pro gram co de. To be  comp at i bl e , license terms mus tbe fre e ofcontradictory  or mutual l y exclusiv e re q ui r ements. Alas,someFOSS licen s es conta in te rms “inc ompatible ” with oth erFOS S l ice n s es , thereby dil u t ingth e abili tyto easi lycom bin e c od e. This u nfortuna te  s it ua tio n has been exa ce rba te d b y the prolif erati on o fin c omp atibleF OS S lice ns es , ma nyof  whic h di f fer  in onl y trivial  wa y s. T he  O pen Sou rce Initiativ e(OSI) [15]  w ascreate d in partto reduce the fragmenta t ion ofthe  FOSS  lic ense spac e c ause b y i n compat ible a nd re du nda n t  lice n s es . O SI  thus stro n g lyencou ra gesusing a n existing FOSS li c ens e instead ofcre atin g anew ,  “ b esp ok e ” l i c ense, and offer s a catego ri z at ion of lic e nse sto help  develo persa void re dundancy[16]. Inge nera l ,  th e more res trictive  the lice n se, t h elesscom patibl eitis wi th oth e r l icens es. Pr op rietar y lic en sed soft ware, by design, cannot  be in corpo rat ed into o the r  co debases a bsen t a separa tel y n egoti ate d  lice nsin g  a gre e ment.  Lic e nse compa t ib ili t y  i s further c o m p lic ated,  ho w ever,in t hat it is directi o nal. License d irec t i ona lit y  ref er s to how a lic ens eb e haves di ff erently wit h code f ee d ing i nto it  (upst ream, o r ba c kward- comp ati ble) or o utof it (dow ns tr e am, or  for wa rd-com patibl e ) (F i g ure 2). For exam ple,a permi s siv e lic en se like theBSD is for ward-compat ible w ithnearl y any o th er kin d o flicense, b u t backwar d-com patible  o nlywit h othe r pe r m issiv e li ce nse s. Likewi s e ,a  c op y lef t li cense  l ikethe GPL c a n incorp ora t e (upst re am) b oth pe r mi s s ive and ot her  GPL' d code, butt he r e su l tingsoftwa re may  only b e  li ce nsed (d own s t ream) und er the GP L . P PT  Pow erPointsl ide
P owe rP oint
 advocates._Of these,_the GPL has the_strongest reciprocity_requirements_and is_considered_a “strong” copyleft_license. The LGPL_(the “Lesser GPL,” denoting_its weaker copyleft_requirements)_is very similar to the GPL from which it is derived, but allows for_linking_to proprietary_code_under_certain circumstances. Similarly, the MPL_allows copyleft to be applied_to some_parts of the code and not others. The_LGPL_and MPL are_considered a compromise between the strong copyleft of GPL_and permissive licenses such as the_BSD/MIT. Compatibility, Proliferation,_Fragmentation,_and_Directionality A fundamental goal_of FOSS is to promote the_free exchange of ideas and technology_without fear of infringing the rights of_others. Ideally, code licensed under like-minded_FOSS terms should be freely_combinable to_create new products. Compatibility is_the attribute of_software licenses_that allows combining_of program code. To be compatible,_license terms must_be free of contradictory or mutually_exclusive_requirements. Alas, some_FOSS_licenses_contain terms_“incompatible” with other_FOSS_licenses, thereby_diluting_the ability to easily combine code._This_unfortunate situation has been exacerbated by the_proliferation of incompatible FOSS_licenses,_many of which differ_in only trivial ways. The_Open Source Initiative (OSI) [15] was_created in_part to_reduce the fragmentation of the FOSS license space cause by incompatible_and redundant licenses. OSI thus strongly_encourages using an existing_FOSS license_instead_of creating a_new,_“bespoke” license,_and offers a categorization of licenses to_help developers_avoid redundancy [16]. In general, the_more restrictive the license,_the_less compatible it is with other_licenses. Proprietary licensed software, by design,_cannot be incorporated into other_codebases_absent_a separately negotiated licensing agreement._License compatibility is further complicated, however,_in that it_is directional. License directionality refers to how_a_license behaves differently with code feeding_into_it (upstream, or backward-compatible) or out_of_it_(downstream, or forward-compatible) (Figure 2)._For example, a permissive license like_the BSD is forward-compatible with nearly any other kind_of license, but_backward-compatible only with other permissive_licenses._Likewise,_a copyleft license like the GPL can incorporate (upstream) both_permissive and_other GPL'd code,_but the resulting software may only be licensed (downstream) under_the GPL. PPT PowerPoint slide

PowerPoint