출처: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/how-to-pick-an-open-source-license-part-2/131
BSD/MIT
Description: The BSD and MIT licenses are two of the oldest and most liberal licenses available. They basically put no restrictions on how the software can be used. These licenses are used by a wide variety of projects including FreeBSD.
Code is protected by copyright? Yes
Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes
Program that uses (incorporates) the software can be sold commercially? Yes
Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? No
Provides explicit patent license? No
ASLv2 (Apache)
Description: The Apache license is only slightly more restrictive than the BSD/MIT licenses. The main thing it adds is some clauses about patent licensing and termination. You should carefully read all the patent clauses in the licenses that have them because they all have subtle differences. All the Apache.org projects use ASL but it's also in wide use outside Apache (for example Google uses it for GWT).
Code is protected by copyright? Yes
Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes
Program that uses (incorporates) the software can be sold commercially? Yes
Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? No
Provides explicit patent license? Yes
GPL (v2)
Description: This is a very common license that allows people to freely use your software as long as they don't charge for it and use the same license for parts of the program that they wrote themselves. The copyright holder is not subject to these restrictions. Widely used, but largely misunderstood. The canonical examples are Linux and MySQL.
Code is protected by copyright? Yes
Code can be used in closed source projects? No* (except by copyright holder)
[*Note: If GPL code is only used in-house, then the answer is Yes. But if someone uses the GPL code in a derived work, and distributes the work, then the answer is No. I'm assuming distribution for this article. -22jun/ebb]
Program that uses (incorporates) the software can be sold commercially? No** (except by copyright holder)
[**Note: If you take "sold" to mean charge for distributing, charge for bundling and packaging, charge for reproducing, charge for support, and charge for indemnification, then the answer is Yes. This is the Linux distributor model. However if by "sold" you mean "paid a fee for a license to use" then the answer is No. Working at a commercial software developer that does charge such fees, the latter definition is most natural to me, so it's the meaning I'm using for this article. -22jun/ebb]
Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? Yes [if distributed, see above]
Provides explicit patent license? No (but v3 is supposed to address this)
LGPL
Description: A derivative of GPL, LGPL includes an exception that is intended to allow code that is released under other licenses to co-exist with and call the LGPL code. However this exception is a bit fuzzy legally as it's currently written, so some businesses shun it. The author of the licenseencourages people not to use it. Personally I think LGPL is a much better choice than GPL for most software, but that a more modern license like EPL is often even better.
Code is protected by copyright? Yes
Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes (maybe)
Program that uses (incorporates) the software can be sold commercially? Yes (maybe)
Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? Yes [if distributed; see notes under GPL]
Provides explicit patent license? No
MPL/CDDL
Description: MPL is used by Mozilla, Firefox, and many other projects. CDDL is based on MPL with a few minor tweaks to make it more applicable outside of Mozilla. CDDL is used by many Sun products such as Solaris. It's expected that Java will be open sourced either under the CDDL or (L)GPL. Note that the patent clauses are not palatable to some businesses, so you may want to consider EPL instead.
Code is protected by copyright? Yes
Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes
Program that uses (incorporates) the software can be sold commercially? Yes
Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? Yes [if distributed]
Provides explicit patent license? Yes
CPL/EPL
Description: CPL was derived from the old IBM Public License and was also influenced by MPL. CPL was originally used by Eclipse, but that project switched to EPL. CPL is also used by some Microsoft open source projects on SourceForge. EPL is a newer version of CPL with some improvements in its patent language to make it more acceptable to businesses. For example if there's a patent dispute it will only affect the part of the software covered by the patent and not the whole thing.
Code is protected by copyright? Yes
Code can be used in closed source projects? Yes
Program that uses (incorporates) the software can be sold commercially? Yes
Source to bug fixes and modifications must be released? Yes [if distributed]
Provides explicit patent license? Yes
