Wikipedia:Software licenses

On the English Wikipedia, most articles about software have a template called Infobox software. One of the parameters that this template has is license. This parameter is sometimes filled in incorrectly.

Correct usage of the license parameter
The  parameter should contain the name of the license that the software is released under.

As described in the article Software license, such licenses either allow or restrict certain actions with regard to the software. Examples of such licenses include:


 * A GNU license – Free software licenses which usually also incorporate copyleft to ensure any copied code remains free as in freedom. A common GNU license is the GNU General Public License (GPL). The specific version used should be specified.
 * A BSD license – There are multiple, and the specific license should be specified wherever possible. BSD licenses are also free software licenses, but do not incorporate copyleft.
 * Public domain – This is not a license; it is a lack of a license. However, it is correct to write this in the  parameter if a piece of software is public domain.
 * A proprietary license – Often, these do not have names at all; in that case, simply write  in the   parameter. If the license does have a name, whether or not it is specified in the infobox is largely irrelevant in this specific case – a proprietary license is a proprietary license; while they may not be comparable in wording, they usually impose the same sorts of restrictions on the user.

A useful resource is the GNU.org list of licenses.

Example
If the software is released under the GNU GPL v3, then the infobox's license parameter would contain that information, as below:

In source editing mode, the above appears as:

Note: '' is a "magic word" used to display the current year on a page, which is dynamically updated. In articles, the date of the software's release should go in this parameter. The template should be used, which automatically displays the amount of time since the date entered into it.''

Incorrect usage of the license parameter
If the only text present in the  parameter is not the name of a software license, the parameter is being used incorrectly. Examples include:


 * " ", " ", or similar. It is unlikely that the developer of the software would not specify which free software license they are using; simply saying "this is free software" is insufficient from a legal standpoint. The software will usually come with a license file that specifies it. While having this text in the  parameter is acceptable as a placeholder, it should be replaced as soon as possible. It is recommended to place a comment in the parameter, after the text, indicating it is a placeholder:.
 * " ". The specific version should be mentioned; it should also be ensured that the license in question is actually the GNU General Public License itself, rather than the GNU Lesser General Public License (GNU LGPL) or GNU Affero General Public License (GNU AGPL), which themselves also have different versions.
 * " ". As mentioned above, there are multiple BSD licenses; if the developer has not specified which one, a possible solution is to write "An unspecified BSD license" in the  parameter. If possible, contacting the developer and informing them of the problem is advisable, but this is unrelated to Wikipedia.
 * " ". As with simply writing "Free software", this is.
 * " " (and variants such as " "), as well as " " and similar. That the developer charges for, or does not charge for, copies of their program is unrelated to this parameter., whether the software is gratis or commercial can be specified in the  parameter  the name of the license. Example: " ".   adds a line break and should be used so that the two separate pieces of text do not appear on the same line.