Answer these questions to find your true love:
Do you want others to make money with your code?
Do you want others to be able to modify your code?
Are you worried about patent trolls?
Will your software be provided as a network service?
Do you care about compatibility with other open source projects?
Recommended Licenses for You: (0/15)
MIT License
A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices.
Fun Explanation
MIT is like a free buffet - take what you want, but don't forget to mention where you got the food!
Pros:
- Simple and easy to understand
- Highly compatible
- Suitable for commercial use
- Allows proprietary modifications
- No patent clause
Cons:
- Limited protection for the author
- May be used in closed-source software
- No explicit patent grant
Usage Count: 1,400,000 websites
Example Project: React, Angular
Apache License 2.0
A permissive license that also provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.
Fun Explanation
Apache 2.0 is like a potluck party where everyone brings a dish and shares the recipes, but nobody can claim they invented the concept of food.
Pros:
- Patent grant
- Business-friendly
- Allows proprietary modifications
Cons:
- More complex
- Potentially incompatible with GPL
Usage Count: 700,000 websites
Example Project: Android, Kubernetes
GNU GPL-3.0
A strong copyleft license that requires distributors of the code to make the source available under the same terms.
Fun Explanation
GPL-3.0 is like a communal garden. You can take vegetables, but you must contribute your plants back to the garden.
Pros:
- Strong protection for open source software
- Ensures software remains free
- Includes patent grant
- Suitable for network services
Cons:
- May affect commercial use
- Poor compatibility with other licenses
- Requires source disclosure for derivatives
Usage Count: 600,000 websites
Example Project: Linux, Git
BSD 3-Clause License
A permissive license similar to the BSD 2-Clause License, but with a 3rd clause that prohibits others from using the name of the project or its contributors to promote derived products without written consent.
Fun Explanation
BSD 3-Clause is like borrowing your neighbor's lawnmower. You can use it, improve it, even lend it to others, but don't pretend you invented it!
Pros:
- Simple
- Business-friendly
- Allows proprietary use
Cons:
- Limited protection for the author
- May be abused
Usage Count: 500,000 websites
Example Project: Flask, Kubernetes
GNU LGPL-3.0
A copyleft license that can be used to license libraries, allowing them to be used by proprietary software.
Fun Explanation
LGPL-3.0 is like a public library. You can borrow books (use the library), but if you write notes in the margins (modify the library), you need to share those notes.
Pros:
- Allows linking to non-GPL software
- Protects core library code
Cons:
- More complex
- May restrict static linking
Usage Count: 200,000 websites
Example Project: GTK, Qt
Mozilla Public License 2.0
A weak copyleft license that allows mixing with proprietary software.
Fun Explanation
MPL 2.0 is like a potluck where you can bring your own secret recipe dish, but if you improve the host's recipes, you have to share those improvements.
Pros:
- File-level copyleft
- Patent grant
- Business-friendly
Cons:
- Medium complexity
- May lead to license fragmentation
Usage Count: 150,000 websites
Example Project: Firefox, Thunderbird
GNU AGPL-3.0
A strong copyleft license for software that runs over a network, particularly on servers.
Fun Explanation
AGPL-3.0 is like a restaurant that gives away its recipes. Even if you're just serving the food (running the software on a server), you still have to share the recipe.
Pros:
- Strong protection for network services
- Ensures users can access source code
Cons:
- Many restrictions
- May affect commercial use
Usage Count: 30,000 websites
Example Project: MongoDB (before 2018), Nextcloud
Unlicense
A license with no conditions whatsoever which dedicates works to the public domain.
Fun Explanation
Unlicense is like leaving a box of free stuff on the sidewalk with a sign that says 'Take what you want, do what you want, I don't care!'
Pros:
- Maximum freedom
- No need to include copyright notice
Cons:
- May be invalid in some jurisdictions
- Lack of legal protection
Usage Count: 40,000 websites
Example Project: youtube-dl
BSD 2-Clause License
A permissive license that comes in two variants, the BSD 2-Clause and BSD 3-Clause.
Fun Explanation
BSD 2-Clause is like lending someone your car. They can drive it, modify it, even let others use it, just don't remove the 'Property of [Your Name]' sticker.
Pros:
- Very simple
- Almost no restrictions
Cons:
- Minimal protection for the author
- May be abused
Usage Count: 45,000 websites
Example Project: FreeBSD
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
A public domain dedication tool, which allows creators to give up their copyright and put their works into the worldwide public domain.
Fun Explanation
CC0 is like donating your art to a public museum. Anyone can see it, copy it, or be inspired by it, with no strings attached.
Pros:
- Waives all rights
- Applicable worldwide
Cons:
- May not be possible to fully waive copyright in some countries
- May not be suitable for software
Usage Count: 35,000 websites
Example Project: Unsplash (photos)
ISC License
Functionally equivalent to the BSD 2-Clause License, but with a simpler wording.
Fun Explanation
ISC is like giving someone a cake recipe on a post-it note. Short, sweet, and to the point!
Pros:
- Very simple
- Easy to understand
Cons:
- Limited protection
- May be misunderstood
Usage Count: 25,000 websites
Example Project: Node.js core libraries
CC BY-NC 4.0
Allows others to remix, adapt, and build upon your work non-commercially.
Fun Explanation
CC BY-NC 4.0 is like sharing your toys, but only with friends, not with the kid who's trying to set up a toy rental business.
Pros:
- Protects against commercial use
- Allows non-commercial sharing and adaptation
Cons:
- Restricts commercial use
- May limit distribution
Usage Count: 100,000 websites
Example Project: Various educational resources
GNU Free Documentation License
A copyleft license for documentation and textbooks.
Fun Explanation
GFDL is like writing a cookbook where anyone can add recipes, but they have to let others keep adding to it too.
Pros:
- Ensures documentation remains free
- Allows commercial use of documentation
Cons:
- Complex
- Not suitable for software
Usage Count: 50,000 websites
Example Project: Wikipedia (until 2009)
Eclipse Public License 1.0
A weak copyleft license used by the Eclipse Foundation.
Fun Explanation
EPL 1.0 is like a potluck where you can bring your own dishes, but if you improve the host's recipes, you need to share those improvements with everyone at the party.
Pros:
- Patent grant
- Suitable for commercial use
Cons:
- Weak copyleft
- Potential compatibility issues
Usage Count: 40,000 websites
Example Project: Eclipse IDE
Boost Software License 1.0
A simple permissive license only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices for source distributions.
Fun Explanation
Boost is like giving away free energy drinks. Use them how you want, just don't remove the label!
Pros:
- Very permissive
- Compatible with GPL
- No attribution requirement for binaries
Cons:
- Limited protection for the author
- May be used in closed-source software
Usage Count: 20,000 websites
Example Project: Boost C++ Libraries