Editing Open-source software (section)

=== Licensing ===
{{Main|Open-source license}}
{{Further|Free-software license}}
{{See also|Free and open-source software#Licensing|Software license}}

FOSS products are generally licensed under two types of licenses: [[permissive software license|permissive licensing]] and [[copyleft|copyleft licensing]].<ref name=":7" /> Both of these types of licenses are different than [[Proprietary software|proprietary licensing]] in that they can allow more users access to the software and allow for the creation of [[derivative work]]s as specified by the terms of the specific license, as each license has its own rules.<ref name=":7" /> Permissive licenses allow recipients of the software to implement the author's [[copyright|copyright rights]] without having to use the same license for distribution.<ref name=":7" /> Examples of this type of license include the [[BSD licenses|BSD]], [[MIT License|MIT]], and [[Apache License|Apache licenses]].<ref name=":7" /> Copyleft licenses are different in that they require recipients to use the same license for at least some parts of the distribution of their works.<ref name=":7" /> Strong copyleft licenses require all derivative works to use the same license while weak copyleft licenses require the use of the same license only under certain conditions.<ref name=":7" /> Examples of this type of license include the [[GNU General Public License|GNU family of licenses]], and the [[Mozilla Public License|MPL]] and [[Eclipse Public License|EPL]] licenses.<ref name=":7" /> The similarities between these two categories of licensing include that they provide a broad grant of copyright rights, require that recipients preserve copyright notices, and that a copy of the license is provided to recipients with the code.<ref name=":7" />

One important legal precedent for open-source software was created in 2008, when the Jacobson v Katzer case enforced terms of the [[Artistic License|Artistic license]], including attribution and identification of modifications.<ref name=":7" /> The ruling of this case cemented enforcement under copyright law when the conditions of the license were not followed.<ref name=":7" /> Because of the similarity of the [[Artistic License|Artistic license]] to other open-source software licenses, the ruling created a precedent that applied widely.<ref name=":7" />

Examples of [[free-software license]] / [[open-source license]]s include [[Apache License|Apache licenses]], [[BSD licenses]], [[GNU General Public License]]s, [[GNU Lesser General Public License]], [[MIT License]], [[Eclipse Public License]] and [[Mozilla Public License]].<ref name=":7" />