Choosing an OSS license

http://choosealicense.com/

by llambda • 13 years ago

117 162 13 years ago

choosealicense.com

sandyarmstrong• 13 years ago

Another great resource, from the other viewpoint (reading/mixing open source licenses): http://www.tldrlegal.com/

DannyBee• 13 years ago

Kind of? It misses important nuances that, in practice, cause the most compliance violations.

For example, for LGPL, it doesn't mention you must allow customer modification and reverse engineering for the purpose of debugging those mods.

Even people who do everything else right, still mess this up.

Some licenses are just not very easily summarized, because they are complex and nuanced.

sparkie8• 13 years ago

The license combination feature is quite flawed too, as it fails to tell you which license of two you must use in the case where it's required; and in some cases where licenses are not compatible, it fails to mention. (eg, MS-PL and GPL)

jeltz5• 13 years ago

Excellent page. Only thing missing is the GPL vs LGPL issue about viral and non-viral copyleft. I am not saying that being viral is a good or bad thing, it is just a choice a developer must make when picking a license.

jmillikin15• 13 years ago

The GPL is not more "viral" than any other software license.

To distribute a product that uses GPL'd code, the rest of that product must also be under an open-source license, but there is no requirement that everything be licensed under the GPL.

Sanddancer3• 13 years ago

There are plenty of licenses that are less viral than the GPL, such as BSD, MIT, etc. Furthermore, if you're pulling code from multiple sources, there are licenses, such as CDDL, that are mutually incompatible with the GPL. So yes, looking at virality very much does matter.

sparkie8• 13 years ago

I'd argue that omitting such important differences like the differences between LGPLv3, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is detrimental to the effort of making licensing "less scary". Given the summaries for GPLv3 and AGPLv3 for example, somebody might think they have identical terms. The only additional information they give is a link to the license text (which is a terrible light grey font on white background). The original license text is what might be scary about licensing: because people struggle to read the legalese.

There needs to be a concise summary of how these licenses differ, one that they can comprehend without reading the whole license text. Website is a good idea, but IMO, needs a lot of work, and may even be harmful in it's current state.

I'm also not sure why they promote the GPLv2 (without + clause) over the GPLv3 either. That may convince someone that people will always share their code, and doesn't mention tivoization. Seems like a deliberate ploy from someone who dislikes the strong copyleft of GPLv3 family to prevent people using them.

I think an improvement would be to have multiple options and to filter down licenses until only a few remain: so eg, when I click "I care about sharing improvements" on the front page, it gives me another few options, like "I want people to share their modifications for hosted websites", or "I want people to be able to use in commercial apps" - which would filter to AGPL and LGPL respectively.

ajross2• 13 years ago

The use of the term "viral" is generally considered inflammatory and unhelpful. An uninformed reader might be led to believe that the act of linking with GPL software can somehow "infect" proprietary software, causing it to be open source. This is incorrect. The GPL restricts distribution (i.e. the combined work may not be legally distributable to anyone), it doesn't "infect" things.

jeltz5• 13 years ago

"Viral" was the only word which sprung to my mind when looking for the right word. And personally I think viral is a mostly neutral word (see viral marketing) which describes the situation. Would "share alike" be a better word perhaps?

orta2• 13 years ago

This is great, and something we as a community need. I work on CocoaPods the objc dependency manager and we have a strict rule of no-unlicensed code. Meaning for a lot of libraries adding themselves to our toolchain is the first time they've ever had to think of the license.

As this is a github project, I'd definitely like to make it known that it would be really cool to have some integration with the license on github's side on a per-repo basis. Asking people to create a license when creating a public repos at the same time as a README could really help get people thinking about licensing.

vrdabomb5717• 13 years ago

Github seems to have done this: https://github.com/blog/1530-choosing-an-open-source-license

Their new repo page points to choosealicense.com and lets you choose any of the major OSS licenses, though it does show the MIT, GPL3, and Apache ones in bold.

I'd definitely like the option to add a license to my repo after creation though, instead of having to manually add a license to the repo and then pushing it. A UI for asking collaborators if it's okay to retroactively open-source their work under a specific license would be useful too.

orta2• 13 years ago

This is a start to get people more thinking about it!

narcissus2• 13 years ago

At some point in the distant past, there used to be a site that had a huge matrix of licenses, that allowed you to look across one axis for one license, down the other axis for a different license and then basically read the consequences of combining code with those two licenses.

I liked that site and for the life of me cannot find it again. Things like "can I copy Apache licensed code into this LGPL code" were answered really simply, even when the answer included comments around making changes available, impact on copyright notices etc.

Does anyone know of anything similar these days? Don't get me wrong, the site linked here is great, but for me, at least, the fuzziness is in the legalities of combining code...

jballanc2• 13 years ago

I'm not familiar with the site you're thinking of, but the Open Source Initiative has one of the largest treasure troves of license information I know of: http://opensource.org/licenses

rzendacott• 13 years ago

I think this may be the site you were referring to: http://www.tldrlegal.com/compare

I was looking up OSS licenses the other day and happened upon it.

Edit: It looks like sandyarmstrong also posted it below.

narcissus2• 13 years ago

That's not the site I was thinking of, but to be honest, it seems to pull off the concept a lot better than the one I remember :)

Thanks!

nwatson• 13 years ago

Here might be something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Licenses_colored_by_licens... ... look at the section "Key" for further explanation.

thruflo• 13 years ago

If you "care about sharing improvements" then choose a license to maximise contributions.

The GPL imposes major headaches / restrictions on potential adopters. This reduces uptake, which reduces contributions, thereby reducing sharing of improvements.

sparkie8• 13 years ago

Perhaps the wording is wrong, but the intention is that people must share their improvements, not some optional hope that they will.

And your claim of restricting potential developers is entirely speculation. e.g, see Linux vs any of the BSDs.

Sanddancer3• 13 years ago

As a counterexample, look at Apple's opinion of GPLv3. Because there are certain clauses that have open legal questions, such as the ones regarding patents, Apple has very strict requirements for internal developers wishing to use GPLv3 code for any task, with a requirement that no published code be GPLv3. Thus, regardless of quality, Apple decided to switch to, and contribute to, projects that did not have such restrictive legal terms attached to it, giving back even when they had no requirement to.

gohrt2• 13 years ago

This is the problem with the site. It makes huge implied value judgments that just confuse the issue.

I "care about patents" -- does that mean that I want users to not violated my patents, or that I want to grant my users a license to my patents?

jasonkester• 13 years ago

Every one of those licenses is more pretentious than I'd like. Does anybody know the closest one to: "Here's some code. Do what you want with it?"

As a guy releasing code, I don't want you to feel obligated to me in any way. I don't want you to have to attribute back to me, or even acknowledge in any form that you've used my thing. I certainly don't want to do anything silly like force you to open source the rest of your code.

I just want to give stuff away. It doesn't seem like that's very possible these days.

Afforess2• 13 years ago

The MIT License. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT . It's about as short as you can get while still satisfying legal types.

belorn5• 13 years ago

Still require copyright notice and permission notice to be included in all copies. If you are a embedded developer, that requirement is still very much there.

aegiso• 13 years ago

WTFPL?

Afforess2• 13 years ago

I find that these sort of licenses do exactly the opposite, as vulgarity pushes away people who might have used the works otherwise.

Doctor_Fegg• 13 years ago

Exactly that. I've licensed a couple of things as WTFPL. It says: not only can you do what you want, I reject all this GPL-style "my freedom is better than your freedom" buffoonery.

If you're afraid of offending people and therefore want to relicense under CC0 or MIT or whatever, you can, because WTFPL allows you to do WTF you like. Obviously.

mtct• 13 years ago

creative common zero

leftnode• 13 years ago

Could you just claim it to be in the public domain?

dllthomas• 13 years ago

My understanding is that CC0 was created in response to a lack of clear method (perhaps in some jurisdictions?) for placing a work in the public domain.

TylerE• 13 years ago

No, because public domain is not a universal concept. In some countries there is no such thing and the code would default back to copyrighted.

jlgaddis2• 13 years ago

I just want to give stuff away.

For my own code, I prefer the BSD license.

Anyone who wants to take it and use it in their own project (whether open source or not) is free to do so.

For me, this provides more "freedom" than the GPL does. I don't care if others provide their changes back to me or if they take it and incorporate it into a successful commercial project and make a few dollars from it.

I'm a big fan of OS X (as are many others on here). I don't think it would exist today if not for the BSD license.

mike-cardwell7• 13 years ago

For my own code, I prefer the GPL.

I write free software, and share it with other people who write free software. I don't share it with people who write closed source software. They are free to write their own versions of my software. After all, that's exactly what they expect me to do, write my own versions of their software.

I'm a big fan of Linux (as are many others on here). I don't think it would exist today if not for the GPL license.

jedahan• 13 years ago

http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

Then that annoying all caps standard 'I AM NOT HELD LIABLE' sentence:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

Done :D

tjaerv2• 13 years ago

Plenty of public domain software on GitHub, with more being created all the time: https://github.com/search?q=%22public+domain%22&type=Code&s=...

jballanc2• 13 years ago

Giving stuff away without a license can be hazardous to your livelihood. This is due to the concept of "Implied Warranty" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty), which says that anything you sell must be suitable for its intended purpose. This means that the fruit that you buy at the store cannot be spoiled, and the software that you sell should be free of serious bugs.

"Wait," you're thinking, "I didn't say sell. I said give away!"

Ah, yes, but were you planning on accepting pull requests? Because exchange of money is not the only way to sell something. There is also the concept of "In Kind" payment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind). So, you make a library with something like a WTFPL license attached. I download your library and use it for my product. Then, to show my gratitude, I submit a pull request with a new feature to one of your other projects (an "In Kind" payment). Later, I find that your first library has a bug that's causing problems for my customers...

...so I sue you for violating the Implied Warranty that you didn't disclaim in your WTFPL license.

This is why all of those open source licenses have the ANNOYING ALL CAPS clauses explicitly disclaiming any implied warranty.

The More You Know!™

belorn5• 13 years ago

In kind is particular tricky legal aspect regarding software. In a previous comment, I wonder if services that take data as payment in exchange for service should be taxed. It would put pressure on companies like google to either stop taking in data, or pay per data point. I can see however that taking that viewpoint would put many other tit for tat in question.

So, as far as in kind is viewed by the state, software has been left alone.

zookatron• 13 years ago

I prefer to use the Unlicense for this: http://unlicense.org/

It's just about as permissive as you can get and it's more professional that the WTFPL license.

tjaerv2• 13 years ago

Looks like you're in good company, as well: https://github.com/search?q=Unlicense&type=Code&s=indexed

belorn5• 13 years ago

An actually answer to the OP that fulfill the requirement of the requested license.

MIT license do not fulfill, as it require copyright notice and permission notice.

WTFPL do not fulfill the requirement, as it require edited software to change name.

Unlicense do fulfill the OPs requirements.

It really deserve to be upvoted above the MIT suggestion.

wahnfrieden• 13 years ago

You're actually creating more obstacles to using your code if you release it under a license that hasn't been vetted by any lawyers. Many companies have their lawyers approve of a given license before adopting code under it, and because of this friction, often it's simpler to just have a company-wide policy to only allow use of code under X, Y or Z licenses and none others. Please just use MIT or BSD.

gjtorikian• 13 years ago

:trollface: http://www.addalicense.com

D9u• 13 years ago

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html (Last modified on 2013-05-17)

I was somewhat disappointed by the dearth of selections presented by the site.

rogerbinns• 13 years ago

It is unfortunate that you are forced to pick between three items. In reality I care about all 3, so why be forced to pick between them?

icebraining4• 13 years ago

They are more or less incompatible. If you want to specify patent protection and/or source sharing requirements, it can't be simple like MIT. And if you want permissive, it makes no sense to demand for source sharing as well.

reidmain• 13 years ago

I'm a big fan of http://www.wtfpl.net/

gohrt2• 13 years ago

http://www.tldrlegal.com/ solves this problem more precisely, more accurately, and with less fake dirty paper in the background image.

pseut5• 13 years ago

It would be useful to have documentation licenses as well.

pbiggar6• 13 years ago

Really, this should just be a big sign saying "use the MIT license".

This is a site for beginners to OSS licensing. If this is your first time, just choose the MIT. If it's not the first time, you get to worry about whether you want to restrict reuse with the GPL, whether you prefer the BSD (2-clause or 3?), whether you agree with Stallman's philosophy enough to put up with the downsides of imposing GPL on your users, whether patents affect you, whether you need copyright assignment, whether to set up an entity to own your code, and all sort of other license bullshit.

First timers should use MIT, every time.

jmillikin15• 13 years ago

The GPL doesn't restrict users; it guarantees them access to the source. The GPL restricts middlemen from withholding the source from users.

foobarbazqux28• 13 years ago

The GPL restricts all non-GPL open source developers by stopping them from changing the license (except to a later version). The converse is hardly true since almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL.

Since this erupted into a fireball, here is a link explaining how code licensed under a permissive license can be included in a project that accepts GPL contributions:

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-c...

wes-exp3• 13 years ago

This. GPL "code sharing" sounds harmless until you realize that it is enforced with a 500 pound ball of red tape that prevents commercial use in numerous typical development scenarios.

ianstallings5• 13 years ago

GPL has never prevented use in commercial products, unless the author uses the GPL 3 and specifically adds a limited clause:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

What it ensures is that the source code will be released along with any uses. If a products uses your code and someone requests that code from them, they should be able to point to your repository, or theirs, and provide a copy.

Now let's say one day you change course and want to close the source for future development. That is completely okay. Only the code you have already released will be out there under the GPL and the future work will be covered under your new license. Any open source libs you use, you of course have to provide the source for. What this does for all of us is it ensures the source code is available to the developer/consumer and they can modify it as needed.

Just some background, I released an OSS SMTP library in 2000 and I've never had a problem using the same library in any commercial product and in fact I went on to build a small component business on it by offering new closed-source features, such as S/MIME, and support contracts to go along with the purchase.

Here it is: http://sourceforge.net/projects/opensmtp-net/

ianstallings5• 13 years ago

No way. GPL or LGPL every time IMHO. It protects your work from proprietary embrace and extend methods. That in turn helps keep it free for all to use and modify. Commercial licenses can still be compatible with the LGPL and GPL if done properly by the copyright owners of the code.

For an example of embrace and extend look at some of the libraries usurped by Microsoft such as Kerberos. I bet they wish they'd have used the GPL.

steveklabnik6• 13 years ago

Cynical comment: do you really expect that on a startup forum, where people are explicitly trying to make businesses on a shoestring, people will advocate for not allowing proprietary embrace and extend methods?

Open Source is free labor, but only if you MIT.

pbiggar6• 13 years ago

So you're someone who clearly has spent a bit of time thinking through all the licenses, and has a good philosophical position on them. However, if you haven't done all that research, and just need a license right now, I think it's not wise to tell people to use the GPL, as it will have side-effects they don't intend, for features they're not interested in (perhaps, not interested in _yet_, of course).

wes-exp3• 13 years ago

It depends what you want, though. Many developers are more interested in maximizing the popularity of their code rather than making sure it is always available under OSS terms. In this case, MIT is a much better choice.

tzs• 13 years ago

For an example of embrace and extend look at some of the libraries usurped by Microsoft such as Kerberos

Unless Microsoft tracked down and managed to wipe out all places that were distributing the code that Microsoft started from, they did not "usurp" the code. Anyone is still free to start with the same code Microsoft started with.

radm• 13 years ago

From my point of view, your free software license represents a marketing effort. But it's a highly specialized kind of marketing - it's your marketing to development communities.

From another point of view (also one of mine), your license says something about the kind of community you see yourself being a part of. And, when you make this choice, you are excluding certain kinds of participants and inviting others. But community is not just a license, it's also how you treat others, how you see them, and how they see you, and the kinds of activities they find interesting (and/or sustainable - sometimes but not often the same thing).

A license is also a cost. For some people this will be a moral or ethical cost. The more desperate the startup the bigger an issue cost starts to become. Related is whatever small bit of return the startup can get - this is the babyfood that it will need to survive and grow.

Ultimately, I think our systems of economics (and if you pretend we only have one you are fooling yourself) demand diversity. There cannot be only one good choice when talking about all startups. There can be one good choice when talking about a specific startup (but for a few, multiple licenses might be a good thing).

Not that I have ever spent any time thinking about these kinds of issues...

Finally, note that while what I am saying here is so overly general as to be entirely useless, there are other [almost conflicting] ways of thinking about these issues which can also have value for a startup.

Carry on...

belorn5• 13 years ago

All the distinction in each open source and free software license is about the legal contract (EU) or legal document (US) that developer gives in tangent with software distribution. The legal information describes the circumstances that further distribution can be made by the recipient.

First timer or not, either they care or they don't about said legal details. If they don't care, then the choice doesn't matter. Pick what ever license is used by libraries, or pick randomly by dart. If they do care, then they surely care enough to read up on the subject and pick based on their (or their community's) liking.

tlarkworthy• 13 years ago

I tend to dual license. Everybody can have it as GPL or business users can buy a copyright version.

gte910h• 13 years ago

If you want your library to be usable on iOS, Windows Phone OS, most game consoles, you should avoid the GPL as they are incompatible with the stores that the applications are sold through.

bmj• 13 years ago

I have a question about the Apache license....I'm trying to understand if an end user must accept the Apache license if I use a library under it in my software. I do understand that I cannot remove the license from the module source, but I'm not sure what needs to provided to the actual software user.

belorn5• 13 years ago

Primarily, the license need to be provided to the software user. No user need to accept the license, as it only impact those who redistribute the work. If the user redistribute the work, then they are also bound by the license.

Additionally, If you are distributing any source material (images, source code and so on), then any modified file need to include a notices stating that the file has changed. You may also not remove copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices in said files.

If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file (also any credit buttons with similar content), you may not remove it.

Thats about it.

snambi• 13 years ago

Hey this site is biased. GPL doesn't restrict end-users or contributors. It only restricts distributors (middleman). While permissive licenses such as APL, MIT don't restrict the distributors, even if they remove the rights of end users.

Choosing an OSS license

Related Stories