same license must be passed on to others when the program is redistributed.
License must not be specific to a product
License must not restrict other software
License must be technology-neutral
list of the nine most widely used licenses is
Apache Software License 2.0 (www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html)
New BSD License (www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php)
GNU General Public License (GPL) (www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html)
GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html)
MIT License (www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL) (www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html)
Common Development and Distribution License (www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html)
Common Public License 1.0 (www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cpl.html)
Eclipse Public License (www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html)
[5].
common misconception, alluded to above, is that since the source code is freely distributed without royalty or licensing fee, open source applications are free of cost.
Free and open source software application users, on the other hand, must rely on development communities for support.
The pervasiveness of the World Wide Web guarantees that nearly every information organization is using free or open source software to perform some function.
What makes OSS different from proprietary software is that it is free in every sense of the word: free as in “no cost,” free as in “unencumbered” and free as in “not locked up.”
questioned whether OSS is overall less expensive than its proprietary counterparts and has called for libraries to look hard at cost factors
OSS projects are thriving communities with leaders, followers, contributors, audiences and reputation systems.
Like so many things librarians hold dear – information, books and library buildings themselves – OSS is open, available and visible for all to see
OSS presents important opportunities for libraries
This is the world we want to be in again. It will not always be easy, and there will be a few spectacular failures. But there will also be spectacular successes – and this time, they will happen in the open.
black-hat services are not illegal, but trafficking in them risks the wrath of Google. The company draws a pretty thick line between techniques it considers deceptive and “white hat” approaches, which are offered by hundreds of consulting firms and are legitimate ways to increase a site’s visibility.
In deriving organic results, Google’s algorithm takes into account dozens of criteria,
one crucial factor in detail: links from one site to another.