🔐Licensing
The first step to open sourcing a project is to decide which license will help meet the aims of the project in the best way.
How to choose a license
Answer this question - What are you afraid of?
Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a licence based on what you are afraid of. All of these licences assume you’re afraid of being sued.
The MIT licence is if you’re afraid no one will use your code; you’re making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible.
The Apache licence you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code, but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls.
With the GPL licences, you are afraid of someone else profiting from your work (and ambiguity, and patent trolls).
This is a radical simplification, but if nothing else it can be a helpful framework in discussing with your attorney what licence makes sense for your software.
📌 Great site that simplifies the licences - https://www.exygy.com/blog/which-licence-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl
MIT vs Apache 2.0
MIT gives you only a copyright licence. Apache 2.0 gives you both a copyright AND a patent licence.
Apache is harder for common users to understand and places more restrictions on users than MIT.
However, Apache is preferred by some because it allows developers to claim patents on derivative projects.
The answer of which licence is best depends on answering: What is your goal?
Broadly speaking, if developers desire the assurance of patent protection + added security to the original, Apache 2.0 is the better choice.
If the goal is for the resultant modified software to be highly accessible by future users without constraints, developers should choose MIT.
MIT / Apache 2.0 vs GNU GPL
Apache and MIT are ‘permissive licences’, GPL is a copyleft licence. It places additional restrictions on users and can be very intimidating to those not familiar with tech. In some cases it is preferred by developers because of the logic ‘if i’m using open source, you should too’.
Basically:
Last updated