heiyou polr_shorter: :aerial_tramway: A modern, powerful, and robust URL shortener

Recent versions of Condor (from 6.9.5 on) are released under the Apache License 2.0. It has a weak per-file copyleft(like version 1 of the Mozilla Public License) which makes itincompatible with the GNU GPL. The CeCILL-C is a free software license with a weak copyleftsomewhat like the GNU Lesser General PublicLicense. This is a free software license, but incompatible with the GPL,for the same reasons as the Jabber Open SourceLicense. Werecommend that you not use this license for new software that you write,but it is ok to use and improve the software released under thislicense. This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL.
The GNU GPLv.3 full license terms are quite lengthy and detailed and you should consider reading them fully if you are using the GNU GPLv.3 license for any significant project or attempting to integrate code licensed under the GLPv.3 license into your existing projects. As CopyLeft licenses, any derivative work must be distributed under the same or equivalent license terms. However, for the US,it is a good idea to register the copyright with the US Registry ofCopyrights, because that puts you in a stronger position against anyonewho violates the license in the US.
It is nearly identical to the FreeBSD (alsocalled “2-clause BSD”) license. You might look at that as betory casino bonus a problem for the developer;however, if you are sure you would want to cooperate with the users inthose ways anyway, then it isn't a problem for you. This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

Free Documentation Licenses

• The GPL is not amember of that class, so the Jabber license does not permit relicensingunder the GPL.
• The Personal Public License Version 3a is a nonfree license because itdenies some users (organizations, governments, businesses) the fourfreedoms.
• The License terms were rewritten to attempt to ensure that international laws will interpret the license as FSF intends.
• The GNU AGPL is flexible enoughthat you can choose a method that’s suitable for your specificprogram—see section 13 for details.
• This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1.0 and the GNU GPL—in other words,you can choose either of those two licenses.

When you receive work under MPL 2.0,you may make a “Larger Work” that combines that work withwork under those GNU licenses. However, if you want a lax, weaklicense, we recommend using the Apache 2.0 license. Please choose and apply an established free softwarelicense. If you want your code to be free, don't invite gratuitous troublefor your users. In the United States, these licenses are supposed to be interpretedbased on what the author seems to intend. An “informal license” means a statement such as“do whatever you like with this” or “you canredistribute this code and change it.”

License

Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Publication License. This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions oncharging money for copies. For clarity, it is better not to use theabbreviation “OPL” for either license. Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Content License. This license can be used as a free documentationlicense. It is incompatible because Section (2c) says “Youadd no other terms or conditions to those of this License”, andthe GNU FDL has additional terms not accounted for in the CommonDocumentation License.
So please submit an entry for your program, when it hasreached the point of being useful. Most other countries have no systemof copyright registration. It is very important for practical reasons to include contactinformation for how to reach you, perhaps in the README file, but thishas nothing to do with the legal issues of applying the license. The GNU AGPL is flexible enoughthat you can choose a method that's suitable for your specificprogram—see section 13 for details. If a source file contains no statement about what itslicense is, then moving it into another context eliminates all traceof that point. However,programmers often copy source files from one free program intoanother.

The Affero notice

For programs that are more than one file, it is better to replace“this program” with the name of the program, and begin thestatement with a line saying “This file is part of NAME”.For instance, Each file's copying permission statement (also called the license notice)should come right after its copyright notices. If you are releasing your program under the Lesser GPL, you should alsoinclude the text version of the LGPL,usually in a file called COPYING.LESSER.
If you receive a work under a GNUlicense where some files are also under the MPL, you should only remove theMPL from those files when there's a strong reason to justify it. In other words, when you make a combination thisway, the files that were originally under the MPL will be duallicensed under the MPL and the GNU license(s). However, to help make sure thislanguage cannot cause any trouble in the future, we encourage developers tochoose a different license for their own works. This license is sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License. Courts mighteven decide that it is not a license at all. The author hasexplained to us that the GPL's options for providing source all mean thesource has been “made available publicly” in theirwords.

• We recommend that you not use thislicense for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improvePlan 9 under this license.
• Please be specific about which CreativeCommons license is being used.
• This statement should go near the beginning of every source file,close to the copyright notices.
• It is based on the Apache License2.0; the scope of the patent license has changed so that whenan organization’s employee works on a project, the organizationdoes not have to license all of its patents to recipients.
• We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHPadd-ons.

This statement should go near the beginning of every source file,close to the copyright notices. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Licenses for Fonts

This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPLthanks to the relicensing option in section 4(c)(ii). Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2,because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version.These include certain patent termination and indemnificationprovisions. Older versions of this license did not have the second sentence withthe express warranty disclaimer. To learn more about how LGPLv2.1 iscompatible with other GNU licenses,please see ourFAQ.

GNU GPL licenses have significant compatibility issues even between versions of the GPL license. Any publicly released code requires that the source code also be made publicly available under the same or substantially similar terms as the original license. GNU-General Public License 3 (GNU-GPLv3) is a copyleft software license developed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and released in June of 2007. GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is a family of CopyLeft software licenses that guarantee end users the right to run, study, share, and modify software. The purpose of a free software license is to give certain rights toall users of a program. All programs, whether they are releasedunder the GPL or LGPL, should include thetext version of the GPL.

This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license that iscompatible with the GNU GPL. That would make them non-copyleft free softwarelicenses and compatible with the GNU GPL. This is a lax, permissive, and weak free software license that iscompatible with the GPL.
This was important because in order to combine two codes into a larger work, both programs must permit that combination. This is significantly different then permissive licenses like the BSD and MIT Licenses. The licenses were originally written by Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), GNU Project, and were released in 1989.
The Code Project Open License is not a free software license.Section 5.6 restricts how you can use the work. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part ofthe disjunctive license of Perl. We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is toovague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning isnot clear. The Anti-Capitalist Software License is a nonfreelicense because it extends the four freedoms only to some kinds oforganizations, not to all. Despite its name, this is not a free software license because itdoes not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simplypackaging software licensed under it with anything for which a chargeis made.
Some people call this license “the MIT License,” butthat term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses forsoftware. This is a free software license, and it is compatible withGPLv3. It is based on the modified BSDlicense, and adds a term expressly stating it does not grant youany patent licenses. This is a free software license, compatible with both GPLv2 andGPLv3. However, this does not cause anyparticular problem for the programs released under the CeCILL. The CeCILL is a free software license, explicitly compatible with theGNU GPL.