Free licenses with the usage limitations?

[jazzbiker]

Greetings for everyone!

Does anybody knows some free licenses with the usage limitations examples? Just curious, I've heard that there exist licenses with the limitations on, for example, usage the sources for so-called machine learning. Or maybe You've met an examples of the free software with the limitations to use in some countries?

Thanks in advance and the best regards for all TinyCore lovers and makers!
 

[GNUser]

Hi, Andrey. I've referred to this page many times through the years, hopefully it helps you too:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

[jazzbiker]

Hi Bruno!

Nice link, thanks. Very comprehensive list and understandable descriptions. Probably what I was asking for can not be named "free license". Licensing is confusing topic. For example so-called Anticapitalist license (never heard about it) is considered non-free. While GPLs are considered free, while they are demanding certain constraints and limitations. So some limitations are free? I'm not clever enough to understand some things )

[Paul_123]

Here is an even bigger list.

And a helper website.  https://choosealicense.com/

[GNUser]

Hi, Andrey. The list I shared has information on both free and non-free licenses. The list is extensive but even the most extensive list would likely be incomplete due to the scourge of license proliferation.

Free software licenses generally come in two flavors: permissive and protective (a.k.a. copyleft)

Permissive licenses (e.g., BSD, MIT, Apache) are the least restrictive. A consequence of this is that permissive licenses favor the developer's freedom in the sense that a developer can take a piece of free software, tweak it, and re-release it under a proprietary license.

Protective/copyleft licenses (e.g., GPL) impose some restrictions on developers and therefore favor the user's freedom. The restrictions on developers basically amount to this: Derivative works must also be free software. The intention is to ensure that users' four freedoms follow the software wherever it goes.

[vinceASPECT]

Sirs, Madam (Forum),

Yes,  it's  a very simple primer you share about "types of licenses".
-
Apparently it's astonishing about  the sheer Proliferation of the globes populous
that have no clue about the MS giant----> meaning when they purchase any Msoft products it's invariably actually   "a licence" that the purchase pertains to .......not
any physical  product
-
(although the two are synominous in Msofts Licences with
hardware manufacturers.

Thx
C.

Sometimes even, any global users agreeing to Certain "License types" further then allows them to  disseminate the product to a wider user base.........fostering the users.

Still,  the instance of a GPL license  may contain many  specific details.........

i believe  with speech Languages, then interpeting what the DEAL actually constitutes is very prominent to RECORD .............record from all party's concerned who are in prospective agreement.

This is particularly relevant regarding licencsing HARDWARE to it's  operation via it's software suite.

SATELLITE BOX's  and such proliferation of firmware  are examples.

Thx
C



 

[jazzbiker]

Hi Paul_123, GNUser, vinceASPECT!

Thank You for replies, links and thoughts.

After some reading and attempts to form some opinion on the topic question I feel that probably the answer in general is - "No". It means that free licenses (in FSF appraoch) imply so-called "zero freedom" - absolutely no limitations or restrictions on usage terms. Even attempts to restrict the military use through the proper licensing were acknowledged as the misleading ones. All the limitations and restrictions (the free ones) may refer to distribution and redistribution.

Still if we'll study the usage of the software itself as the raw sources in machine learning I see some inconsistencies, which are not discussed widely (or I've failed to find those discussions). Software distributed under some free license is not restricted in any usage. While non-software data are recommended to be distributed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. Among the CC licenses we can find for example CC-BY-NC - non-commercial use only license. And as far as I found out most datasets used in machine learning are recommended to use one of the CC family licenses. Which already means the restriction in usage. Here we can see some contradiction for the case when the software itself is fed to the neural network.

My current vision is that if You don't want Your software not to be used for pumping the AI bubble - forget about FSF, "zero fredom" and so-called free licenses. Some of CCs? No, they are not intended to be describe the terms of usage of the software. So which?

Any opinions?

Best regards!

[vinceASPECT]

Hello,

It's complicated  .........right.

Not withstanding that the world wide web is filled with oceans upon oceans
of completely free software tools.........

Not sure ,as i only see it as end user  ........ view..........

But sure , it's a serious  topic from any commercial view........

Practically , there are prominent examples of commercial ownerships
which serve to produce successful profitable corporations.

Perhaps licensing is directed towards the types of uptakers.........devs or Enterprise ...final customers.

It seems it's always been about providing a Lifecycle "ongoing" with software
and services to the customer base

Apparently a huge amount of M's  wealth is the service of support for the
product......call centres

Thx
C
corps etc