Write my essay
Custom essay writing service
Essays for sale
Order essay online
Type my essay
Coursework writing service
Research paper writing service
Start your workBy selecting a service type
Before we will conduct a comparison and discussion regarding the Academic Free License and Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), we should know first what an open-source license is. An open-source license has been described by the wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as a copyright license for computer software that makes the source code available under terms that allow for modification and redistribution without having to pay the original author. Such licenses may have additional restrictions such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and the copyright statement within the code. One popular ,and sometimes considered normative, set of open source license are those approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) based on their Open Source Definition (OSD) (See: Open-source license. From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Need essay sample on
We will write a custom essay sample specifically for youProceed
The open source definition presents an open-source philosophy and further defines a boundary on the usage, modification and redistribution of open-source software. Software licenses grant rights to users which would otherwise be prohibited by copyright. These include rights on usage, modification, and redistribution. Several open-source software licenses have qualified within the boundary of the Open Source definition. Open Source License define the privileges and restrictions a licensor must follow in order to use, modify or redistribute the open source software. Open Source software includes software with source code in the public domain distributed under an open-source license (See: Open Source Software Resources and News. All free info).
The Academic Free License denotes an open source or free software that was written by Lawrence E. Rogen in the year 2002 which is the general counsel of the Open Source Initiative. The said license confer the same rights to the MIT, BSD, Uol/NCSA and Apache licenses which let the software to be taken propriety but was written to illuminate perceived dilemmas with those licenses such as: 1) the AFL makes clear what software is being licensed by including a statement following the software’s copyright notice; 2) the AFL includes a complete copyright grant to the software; 3) the AFL contains a complete patent grant to the software; 4) the AFL makes clear that no trademark rights are granted to the licensor’s trademark; 5) the AFL warrants that the licensor either owns the copyright or is distributing the software under a license and last is; 6) the AFL is itself copyrighted, with the right granted to copy and distribute without modification (See: Academic Free License, wikipedia. Answers.com: The world’s greatest encyclodictionalmanacapedia).
According from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that there was a reason why the said license was written. The v.1.2 and v.2.1 were the former versions of Academic Free License (AFS). This is v.3.0 of AFL.AFL is used to apply an original work of authorship. A licensor can apply AFL for his original work. AFL’s goal is making clear the kind of software that is licensed by copyright notice. AFL provides grant of copy right license, grant of patent license and grant of source code license. It also makes clear exclusions from license grant. That is, the rights of trademarks or service marks cannot be granted unless the licensor permits the trademarks. Moreover, AFL gives the licensor the copyright and distributes the licensed software. The AFL is not a known license because in 2006 of January, there were only 42 projects on Freshmeat which used a version of the license. The Free Software Foundation stated that the AFL version 1.2 is not compatible with the GNU GPL, nonetheless the FSF has not commented on the newer version 2.1.
Moreover, wikipedia added that AFL v.1.2 is not compatible with the GPL and AFL v.2.1 is not clear whether it is compatible with the GPL or not the AFL v.3.0 is compatible with the GPL. Because it does not permit modification of the license that is applied to the original work of authorship or derivative of the original works. AFL prohibits you from using AFL or Academic Free License when you modified AFL.
According from Open Source website that this Academic Free License will apply to any original work of authorship (the Original) whose owner (the Licensor) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Original Work software.
Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL1.1) was defined by the Open Source as: 1) a commercial use which means distribution or otherwise making the Covered code available to a third party; 2) Contributor which refers each entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications; 3) Contribution Version means the combination of the Original Code, prior Modifications used by a Contributor , and the Modifications made by that particular Contribution; 4) Covered Code denotes the Original Code or Modifications or the combinations of the Original Code and Modifications, in each case including portions thereof; 5) Electronic Distribution Mechanism means a mechanism generally accepted in the software development community for the electronic transfer of data; 6) Executable refers Covered Code in any form other than Source Code; 7) Initial Developer describes the individual or entity identified as the Initial Developer in the Source Code notice required; 8) Larger Work refers to a work which combines Covered Code or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License; 9) License means document; 10) Licensable denotes of having the right to grant, to the maximum extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or subsequently acquired and all of the rights conveyed herein; 11) Modification describes to any addition to or deletion from the substances or structure of either the Original Code or any previous Modification; 12) Original Code means Source Code of computer software code which is described in the Source Code notice required as Original Code, and which at the same time of its release under this License is not already Covered Code governed by this License; 13) Patent Claims means any patent claim or claims, now owned or hereafter acquired which include without limitation, method, process and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by grantor; (See: Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1). Open Source).
Moreover, the Mozilla Public License as stated in wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that it is an open source and free software license. Mitchell Baker developed Version 1.0 when she worked as a lawyer at Netscape Communications Corporation and version 1.1 at the Mozilla Foundation. The MPL is characterized as a hybridization of the GNU General Public License and the modified BSD license. The MPL is the license for the Mozilla Application Suite which includes Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird, and related software. The MPL has been adapted by others as a license for their software, most notably Sun Microsystems as the Common Development and Distribution License for OpenSolaris which the open source version Solaris 10. The license is regarded as a weak copy left. Particularly, source code copied or changed under the MPL must stay under the MPL. Unlike strong copy left license, the code under the MPL may be joined in a program with proprietary files which are not derivative works of the MPL code (See: Mozilla Public License. From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Do You need a paper on this topic?Order Your Essay
Order your paper now!
I asked Essay Lab to write an essay for me and received paper the next day after I ordered it! Thank you!
Awesome WORK! If I ever need to write my essay – I will use only EssayLab!
These people are lifesavers! Just ask – “write me an essay” and they will start right away!
We would be happy to write itJoin and witness the magic