Return to Answer

Copyleft emphasises that you can not do everything with the source. The usual example is GPL-style restrictions, which do not allow using the code in a closed-source project _{^{except as SAAS}}. (The “left” is sometimes interpreted as: you have to give your own code back if you want to have the benefits of somebody else's open-source project.)

Permissive licenses do allow this kind of reuse; their main requirement is that of attribution. (But I suppose public-domain / CC0, where not even attribution is necessary, would also be considered permissive.)

Copyleft emphasises that you can not do everything with the source. The usual example is GPL-style restrictions, which do not allow using the code in a closed-source project _{^{except as SAAS}}. (The “left” is sometimes interpreted as: you have to give your own code back if you want to have the benefits of somebody else's open-source project.)

Permissive licenses do allow this kind of reuse; their main requirement is that of attribution. (But I suppose public-domain / CC0, where not even attribution is necessary, would also be considered permissive.)

Copyleft emphasises that you can not do everything with the source. The usual example is GPL-style restrictions, which do not allow using the code in a closed-source project. (The “left” is sometimes interpreted as: you have to give your own code back if you want to have the benefits of somebody else's open-source project.)

Permissive licenses do allow this kind of reuse; their main requirement is that of attribution. (But I suppose public-domain / CC0, where not even attribution is necessary, would also be considered permissive.)

Copyleft emphasises that you can not do everything with the source. The usual example is GPL-style restrictions, which do not allow using the code in a closed-source project _{^{except as SAAS}}. (The “left” is sometimes interpreted as: you have to give your own code back if you want to have the benefits of somebody else's open-source project.)

Permissive licenses do allow this kind of reuse; their main requirement is that of attribution. (But I suppose public-domain / CC0, where not even attribution is necessary, would also be considered permissive.)

Copyleft emphasises that you can not do everything with the source. The usual example is GPL-style restrictions, which do not allow using the code in a closed-source project. (The "left" is sometimes interpreted as you have to give your own code back if you want to have the benefits of somebody else's open-source project.)

Permissive licenses do allow this kind of reuse, their main requirement is that of attribution. (But I suppose public-domain / CC0, where not even attribution is necessary, would also be considered permissive.)

Copyleft emphasises that you can not do everything with the source. The usual example is GPL-style restrictions, which do not allow using the code in a closed-source project. (The “left” is sometimes interpreted as: you have to give your own code back if you want to have the benefits of somebody else's open-source project.)

Permissive licenses do allow this kind of reuse; their main requirement is that of attribution. (But I suppose public-domain / CC0, where not even attribution is necessary, would also be considered permissive.)