Written by Lawrence Rosen (attorney, formal counsel of the Open Source Initiative), AFL-3.0 gives recipients a copyright and allows for a patent on the software so long as they include the original software, any of its copyrights or trademarks and a note saying that you modified it (as the case may be). Nearly identical as the Open Software License (same author), but not reciprocal: it is permissive (widely compatible), interoperable and  doesn't force derivative works to use the same licence. Applicable law and venue are those of the licensor.

Apache-2.0 is a permissive licence. For OSI it supported by an important community of developers. You can do what you like with the software, as long as you include the required notices. Compared with the MIT, recipients receive a patent licence from the contributors of the code. Applicable law / competent court are not specified

Artistic-2.0 is a license preserving control of the original copyright holder: recipient can use, modify and distribute the original versions (including bug corrections) but other modified versions must document how far they are different and be reported to the original author, or be distributed under a different name, or otherwise be available under the Artistic licence or any other licence granting similar rights (access to the original version and source code of modifications). Applicable law / competent court: not specified.

BSL is a short permissive licence requesting only to maintain the original copyright notices and warranty disclaimer in all copies and derivatives, unless in the form of “machine-executable object code generated by a source processor.” Applicable law / competent court: not specified. Alternative: use MIT.

BSD 2-clause (or Free BSD) is a permissive licence. For OSI it is supported by an important community of developers. BSD-2 permits almost unlimited freedom with the software so long as you include the BSD copyright notice in it (as is in licence text). Applicable law / competent court: not specified. Too many variations of the BSD licence exist: using the popular MIT licence instead is a reasonable alternative.

0BSD is a very permissive licence, like the BSD-2-Clause, but without the "attribution" requirement to include the authors' copyright notice, the license text and the disclaimer in either source or binary forms. The code may therefore be freely redistributed and relicensed without even mentioning its origin.

Permissive licence identical to the BSD-3-Clause, but the disclaimer adds an explicit exclusion of any patent rights: "NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED LICENSES TO ANY PARTY'S PATENT RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY THIS LICENSE".

BSD 3-clause is a permissive licence. OSI states that it is supported by an important community of developers. BSD-3 allows you almost unlimited freedom with the software so long as you include the BSD copyright and license notice in it (found in Fulltext). Compared to BSD-2, the added clause 3 states that names of the copyright holder and contributors cannot be used to endorse or promote derived products (prior written permission). Applicable law / competent court: not specified. Too many versions of the BSD exist. Using the popular MIT licence instead is a reasonable alternative.

CC0 is a very permissive licence, like the 0BSD it releases the covered work in the public domain and grants permission to use it for any purpose, without the "attribution" requirement to include the authors' copyright notice, the license text and the disclaimer in either source or binary forms. The code may therefore be freely redistributed and relicensed without even mentioning its origin. Disclaims patent licenses. Open Knowledge foundation recommends this licence. The European Commission has adopted CC0 for releasing documents that do not require attribution (i.e. raw data resulting from instrument readings, bibliographic data and other metadata).

CeCILL-2.1 is a reciprocal (or copyleft) licence initiated in France by INRIA, CEA and CNRS. It has a working value in EN/FR. It is compatible with the EUPL, GPL and AGPL as possible outbound licences. Governed by French law. All disputes referred to the court in Paris. CeCILL-2.1 is, like the EUPL and the GPL/AGPL one of the reciprocal licences to be used (authorised) by French administrations. 

Like the popular MIT or BSD, CeCILL-B is a permissive licence initiated in France by INRIA, CEA and CNRS. It has a working value in EN/FR. Obligations are limited to copyright attribution. Otherwise, recipients may reuse the software code without restrictions. Governed by French law. All disputes referred to the court in Paris. CeCILL is one of the permissive licences to be used (authorised) by French administrations. 

Like the LGPL, CeCILL-C is a so called moderately copyleft licence initiated in France by INRIA, CEA and CNRS. It has a working value in EN/FR. It is widely compatible, since only the specific files source code must stay covered, and not the other files or components of a solution. It is therefore designed for components or libraries. Governed by French law. All disputes referred to the court in Paris. CeCILL is one of the licences to be used (authorised) by French administrations. 

The licence is superseeded. The licence steward has issued a new version of this license (Eclipse Public License: EPL-1.0 and later EPL-2.0). Check the licensing materials for the software distribution itself to confirm the correct version of the license.
CPL is copyleft for source code only. Object code may be distributed under another licence, provide it complies with the terms and conditions of the CPL.
CPL is one of the compatible licences listed by the EUPL-1.1, meaning that works distributed under the CPL may include parts of source code obtained under the EUPL.
CPL is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States of America.

A moderately reciprocal (or "weak copyleft") licence used by SUN, including explicit patent grants. It is similar to MPL and EPL. OSI states it is supported by a strong community. You can distribute compiled object code under any licence, by the original source code (and modified derivatives) must be made available,under the CDDL. References to US law.

Creative Common permissive licence. Use the last version 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0) 

The less restrictive Creative Commons Attribution licence is this international version 4, which gives recipients maximum freedom to do what they want with the work of the licensor. Recipents redistributing the work must give credit to the original author of the work (= attribution) and state changes if any, including a URL or link to the original work, this CC-BY licence and a copyright notice. Author can request to remove any attribution given information. Recipients re-distributing the work to third parties may not apply legal terms or technological measures (like Tivoisation) that legally restrict the rights granted by the licence. OKF (Open Knowledge Fundation) recommends this licence. The European Commission has adopted CC-BY-4.0 for sharing documents.

Creative commons licence is based on version 4.0 of the creative commons attribution license.
You must give credit to the original author of the work, including a URI or hyperlink to the work, this CC licence and a copyright notice.
It additionally prevents commercial use and requires any derivative to use the same licence ("share alike" provision).
It also doesn't allow Tivoization (restrictions related to specific hardware) and provides protection from defamation for the creator.
Note that the prohibition of commercial use is - in general - not an "Open" good practice.

Creative commons licence is based on version 4.0 of the creative commons attribution license.
You must give credit to the original author of the work, including a URL or hyperlink to the work, this CC licence and a copyright notice.
It does allow making derivatives: you may distribute modified works, provide the same CC-BY-SA-4.0 is used for distribution. The EUPL provides outbound compatibility with CC-BY-SA (3.0 and by extension 4.0)

Creative commons licence based on version 4.0 of the creative commons attribution license.
You must give credit to the original author of the work, including a URL or hyperlink to the work, this CC licence and a copyright notice.
It is very restrictive as it does not allow making derivatives: you may not distribute modified works. Therefore it is convenient for literary works (where the author agrees for distribution but refuses any alteration) or for legal texts / case law etc. that cannot be modified (even when respecting the general idea or spirit).

Written by Axel Metzger and Till Jaeger from the Institute for Legal Questions on Free and Open Source Software (ifrOSS), the D-FSL-1.0 is a GPL-compatible open source licence. At the contrary of most open licences (and like the EUPL-1.2), it is tailored to German and European law. It has a working value and is binding in German and English. The licence is copyleft, but - in conformity to the European Law, it is interoperable and accepts linking (with an other part including the covered lines of code that are strictly required for implementing interoperability) without extending the D-FSL to this other part (no "viral effect"), provide that the part which is combined with the program can also be reasonably usable on a standalone basis or with other programs. The License is governed by German law. 

EPL-1.0 is now superseeded by EPL-2.0.  EPL-1.0 that was made and mainly used by the Eclipse Foundation, is similar to GPL but does not submit linking of the covered code to conditions or "viral" extension of licence coverage to the other linked software. OSI states EPL is supported by a strong community. Binaries can be licensed under any license, as long as the source code stay available under EPL. This was not considered as "compatible with the GPL" Therefore the EPL-2.0 now lists the GPL-2.0-or-later as a compatible secondary licence for the source code. EPL is also listed as compatible by the EUPL. Article 7 EPL-1.0 states: "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States of America."

EPL, made and mainly used by the Eclipse Foundation, is similar to GPL but is interoperable, as it does not submit linking of the covered code to conditions or "viral" extension of licence coverage to the other linked software. OSI states EPL is supported by a strong community. Binaries can be licensed under any license, as long as the source code stay available under EPL. EPL copyleft is "variable" as the source code may also be made available under secondary licenses, which includes the GNU GPL-2.0-or-later and any other licence added by the licensor. This may facilitate the request of exeptions, when necessary.

Official Licence of the European Union (EC Decision,  part of European law). The licence is interoperable (no restrictions on linking in order to facilitate the integration of multiple components), reciprocal (third parties distributing improvements or derivatives must publish and provide back the modified source code) and compatible: no global relicensing permitted, but the source code could be reused in other projects under GPL/AGPL, EPL, LGPL, MPL, OSL, CeCILL, LiLiQ. EUPL covers SaaS / network distribution. EUPL covers "the Work" (software and ancillary data). Original in 23 EU languages. Replaces EUPL-1.1 for works "Licensed under the EUPL" without specifying licence version, or adding "or later". Applicable law and court: licensor seat in EU (or specific additional agreement), otherwise Belgium. Support from the Joinup.eu community. Free legal support provided.

Licence of the European Union, used in public and private sector. The licence is reciprocal and covers SaaS. Replaces the EUPL-1.0. Original and working in English and 21 other EU languages. Interoperable (no restriction on linking). Compatibility list including some other copyleft licences (GPL-2.0, EPL, OSL, CeCILL). Applicable law and court: licensor seat (EU law). Supported by the Joinup.eu community. Free legal support provided. "Or later" means coverage by the more compatible EUPL-1.2 (May 2017).

GPL-3.0 was forged in 2007. It is a copyleft licence. OSI states GPL (without indicating version number) as supported by a strong community (the Free Software Fundation - FSF). You may copy, distribute and modify the software as long as you track changes/dates in source files. Any derivative including (i.e. via compiler) GPL-licensed code must also be made available under the GPL-3.0 along with build & install instructions. Adding "or later" is recommended by the FSF to cover an hypothetical GPL-4.0, but still means "GPL-3.0 only" for the time being. Therefore licensing under "GPL-2.0 or later" will better improve compatibilities, because the use of the GPL-2.0 is still more important. Compatibility / interoperability are known sources of tension when a project combines the covered code with non-GPL sources from other stakeholders, because according to the FSF linking other software to GPLed works extends the GPL coverage to these other programs.

Covers both the GPL-2.0 (the "historical" free software license), the GPL-3.0 and possible later versions. Supported by a strong community (the Free Software Foundation - FSF). Copy, modification and distribution authorised. Changes/dates must be traced in source files. Any derivative must also be made available under one or more of these GPL versions. Compatibility / interoperability are known sources of tension when a project combines the covered code with non-GPL sources from other stakeholders, because according to the FSF linking other software to GPLed works extends the GPL coverage to these other programs. Licensing under "GPL-2.0 or later" may be recommended since it is compatible with all GPL versions (2 and 3).  At the contrary, licensing under  "GPL-2.0-only" is not compatible with GPL-3.0.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) produced LGPL for libraries. Works made by using the covered software could be distributed under any licence. Distribution of derivatives (code modifications) must be done under LGPL. Reverse engineering must be allowed (= a general permission in EU law). FSF assimilates static linking to producing derivatives (which is not the case in EU law when made for interoperability).

A modified GPL-3.0 extended to network or Web services distribution (SaaS). Similar to the EUPL on that point. The licence is copyleft: copies and derivatives may be distributed under the same AGPL only. Need to document derivatives' changes and dates. Incompatible with other licences. Interoperability restricted to linking with code covered by the original GPL-3.0. Applicable law / competent court: not specified.

The "historical" free software licence. Supported by a strong community (the Free Software Foundation - FSF). Copy, modification and distribution authorised. Changes/dates must be traced in source files. Any derivative must also be made available under the GPL along with build & install instructions. Compatibility / interoperability are known sources of tension when a project combines the covered code with non-GPL sources from other stakeholders, because according to the FSF linking other software to GPLed works extends the GPL coverage to these other programs. Licensing under "GPL-2.0 or later" is advised (otherwise it is "GPL-2.0-only" - not compatible with GPL-3.0).

Fundamental revison of the GPL produced in 2007. OSI states GPL (without indicating version number) as supported by a strong community (the Free Software Fundation - FSF). You may copy, distribute and modify the software as long as you track changes/dates in source files. Any derivative including (i.e. via compiler) GPL-licensed code must also be made available under the GPL-3.0 along with build & install instructions. Compatibility / interoperability are known sources of tension when a project combines the covered code with non-GPL sources from other stakeholders, because according to the FSF linking other software to GPLed works extends the GPL coverage to these other programs. At the exception of AGPL-3.0, the licence is compatible with no other (even the GPL-2.0) and, according to the FSF, linking other software to GPLed works extends the GPL coverage to these other programs.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) produced LGPL for libraries. Works made by using the covered software could be distributed under any licence. Distribution of derivatives (after code modification) must be done under LGPL. Reverse engineering must be allowed (= a general permission in EU law). FSF assimilates static linking to producing derivatives (which may not be the case under EU law).

ISC is a short and permissive software license (like MIT and BSD). Main obligation is to include the original copyright notice. For reducing licence proliferation, it is advised to use the MIT licence instead.

LPPL is a very specific, non-copyleft licence. It organises rights of the "maintainer" of a work V/S other distributors who have to comply with documentation requirements and to communicate the original code (or report where it can be available).

This version of LiLiQ is the moderately reciprocal licence produced by the State of Quebec (Canada). Official versions in French and English. A list of licences with similar level of reciprocity is declared compatible, including GPL, EUPL, MPL, LGPL etc., meaning that the covered code can be reused in other projects covered by these licences. Law of Quebec is applicable. Court of Quebec is competent.

This version of LiLiQ is the permissive licence produced by the State of Quebec (Canada). Official versions in French and English. Law of Quebec is applicable. Court of Quebec is competent.

This version of LiLiQ is the reciprocal (or copyleft) licence produced by the State of Quebec (Canada). Official versions in French and English. Other reciprocal licences GPL-2.0-or-later and the EUPL are expressly listed as compatible, meaning that the covered code can be reused in other projects covered by these licences. Law of Quebec is applicable. Court of Quebec is competent.

Microsoft's permissive licence. Availability of source code is not mandatory, but if re-distributed, source code must include the licence and copyrights. Object code only distribution is permitted and may by done under any compliant (permissive) licence. Definitions refers to the U.S. copyright law.

Microsoft's reciprocal/copyleft licence. Availability of source code under the same MS-RL licence is mandatory in case of re-distribution (in source or binary form) of any covered file. No impact on other files. Object code distribution may by done under any compliant licence. Definitions refers to the U.S. copyright law.

MIT is the most recommended permissive licence: short and very popular (probably the most used worldwide). OSI states it is supported by a strong community. Basically, you can do whatever you want as long as you include the original copyright and licence notice in any copy of the software/source. Another version MIT-0 does not mention the obligation of including the copyright notice. MIT is one of the permissive licences to be used (authorised) by French administrations.

MPL is a reciprocal (or copyleft) licence that is interoperable and - to a certain extend - compatible with other licences, even copyleft or proprietary. OSI states it is supported by a strong community. The recipient must make the source code for any of distributed changes available under MPL, but can combine the MPL software with proprietary code, as long as the MPL code is kept in separate files. Version 2.0 is, by default, compatible with LGPL and GPL version 2 or later and with the EUPL (and the reciprocate is true in this last case, since MPL is listed as compatible by the EUPL). You can distribute binaries under a proprietary licence, as long as you make the source available under MPL.  Jurisdiction fixed where the defendant maintains its principal place of business. MPL is one of the reciprocal licences to be used (authorised) by French administrations. 

ODC Open Database License (ODbL) is a reciprocal (or copyleft) licence with specific terms convenient for databases. ODbL is recommended by Open Knowledge Fundation (OKF).

This licence is meant to be an international, database-specific equivalent of public domain dedication. At the same time, licence states that nobody can relicense or sublicense any database under PDDL because after a public domain dedication nobody longer own any rights to the database. It looks dubious that such prohibition is enforceable, and by whom? However, OKF (Open Knowledge Fundation) recommends this licence... 

Written by Lawrence Rosen (attorney, formal counsel of the Open Source Initiative), OSL is seen as a reciprocal licence, incompatible with the GPL. It is interoperable (freedom of linking with other software). Law and jurisdiction where Licensor resides or conducts its primary business.

Open Data Commons Attribution (ODC-BY) is a rather permissive licence written for databases. It allow users to freely share, modify, and use a database subject only to attribution requirements set out in its Section 4, but does not permit sublicensing or imposing any further restrictions on the exercise of the granted rights. ODC-BY is recommended by Open Knowledge Fundation (OKF)

MIT or BSD-style licence, used specifically for PostgreSQL.
When applicable and for avoiding licence proliferation, the MIT licence is a reasonable alternative.

OFL is used for licensing fonts (character polices). Selling fonts by themselves is not allowed, but bundling with software and selling font design services is authorised. If font is modified, name must be changed. Document embedding is authorised.

UPL is a permissive licence similar to the MIT plus an explicit patent grant, ability to relicence (even under proprietary or copyleft conditions) at the condition to maintain the copyright notice or a reference to UPL. It may be used as Contributor Licensing Agreement. Using the MIT instead is a reasonable alternative.

University of Illinois short and permissive licence. Distributions must include the licence in full text. For limiting licence proliferation, the MIT licence is a reasonable alternative.

To Unlicense means releasing code into the public domain, thereby releasing all rights and all control you may hold to that code. For more standardisation and good practice, the use of a very permissive licence like the MIT licence is the recommended alternative.

Specific licence used for the zlib library and some other open-source libraries/packages. Short and permissive. Modified versions must be marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software (changing name is recommended). Exclude liability from original authors. Using the MIT instead is a reasonable alternative.