GPL "infects" other parts of a system to combat a work-around which was used to violate the software freedom of the user, by firewalling sections of GPL'ed code from the rest of the system.

The point of GPL licenses is to protect the user of the software, not the developer. If you want "protection" as a developer, use MIT (disclaimer of warranty). GPL "infects" other parts of a system to combat a work-around which was used to violate the software freedom of the user, by firewalling sections of GPL'ed code from the rest of the system. If you don't care about your users' software freedom in the first place, then (L)GPL is the wrong choice.

If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary (nonfree)

Free/Open Licenses Non-free Licenses

58. When an individual searches on WorldCat.org, the individual agrees to the OCLCWorldCat.org Services Terms and Conditions (attached here as Exhibit B).

Te Hiku Media gathered huge swathes of Māori language data. Corporates are now trying to get the rights to it

We hope to develop a license that is an international example for indigenous people's retention of mana over data and other intellectual property in a Western construct.

The Rights Retention Strategy ignores long-standing academic freedoms

This isn’t an accident. OpenOffice’s sidebar code was copied and incorporated into LibreOffice. The Apache OpenOffice project uses the Apache License, while the LibreOffice uses a dual LGPLv3 / MPL license. The practical result is LibreOffice can take OpenOffice’s code and incorporate it into LibreOffice — the licenses are compatible. On the other hand, LibreOffice has some features — like font embedding — that don’t appear in OpenOffice. This is because the two different licenses only allow a one-way transfer of code. LibreOffice can incorporate OpenOffice’s code, but OpenOffice can’t incorporate LibreOffice’s code. This is the result of the different licenses the projects chose.

To read all of the license deeds, or legal codes, visit this site and explore the different licenses. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Because of the support we've received from open source communities, we've decided to dual-license the code after 18 months

http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/329

User rights Every CC licence allows you to: Copy the work (eg. download, upload, photocopy and scan the work); Distribute the work (eg. provide copies of the work to teachers, students, parents and the community); Display or perform the work (eg. play a sound recording or film in class, or stage a play to parents); Communicate the work (eg. make the work available online on the school intranet, learning management system or on a class blog); and Format shift verbatim copies of the work (eg copy a MP3 version of music onto a CD or an MP4 version of a film onto a DVD to play in class). Source: Adapted from 'Baseline Rights'  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Baseline_Rights   Some CC licences also let you make other uses, however these are the base user rights provided for all CC material. User obligations When you use any CC material, you must: always attribute the creator of the work (for information on how to attribute a work, see information guide, ‘How to Attribute Creative Commons Material’); get permission from the creator to do anything that goes beyond the terms of the licence (e.g. making a commercial use of the work or creating a derivative work where the licence does not permit this); keep any copyright notice attached to the work intact on all copies of the work; indicate and link to the licence from any copies of the work; and where you make changes to the work, acknowledge the original work and indicate that changes have been made (eg by stating ‘This is a French translation of the original work, X’).   In addition, when you use any CC material, you must not:  alter the terms of the licence; use the work in any way that is prejudicial to the reputation of the creator of the work; imply that the creator is endorsing or sponsoring you or your work; or add any technologies (such as digital rights management) to the work that restrict other people from using it under the terms of the licence. Source:  Adapted from 'Baseline Rights'  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Baseline_Rights 

publish works containing parts covered by different licenses

This was in part because of the considerable time that it took WWARN secretariat staff to persuade Oxford University lawyers that seven pages of often arcane legal language could be streamlined into a three-page document in plain English, understandable to malaria researchers worldwide.

The project will develop an analysis package in the open-source language R and complement it with a step-by-step hands-on manual to make tools available to a broad, international user community that includes academics, scientists working for governments and non-governmental organizations, and professionals directly engaged in conservation practice and land management. The software package will be made publicly available under http://www.clfs.umd.edu/biology/faganlab/movement/.

But like the original authors, JSTOR had to negotiate its licensing agreements from a position of weakness. There is a wonderful history of JSTOR written by Roger C. Schonfeld. In it he notes that the charter publishers signed up by JSTOR (in particular the University of Chicago Press) demanded that they be compensated if there was a loss to their (minimal) sales of rights to older materials, and they demanded compensation even before JSTOR covered its own expenses.