Include-Copyright on Your License

All Rights Reserved

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

“All Rights Reserved” is the default state under modern copyright law for any original work — software, writing, images. No one other than the copyright holder may copy, modify, distribute, or create derivative works without explicit permission.

Paradoxically, publishing code on GitHub without a licence makes it “all rights reserved” by default. Viewers can read it, but cannot legally use it. If your goal is for others to use your work, pick an open-source or Creative Commons licence instead.

Apache License 2.0

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Apache 2.0 is a permissive license similar in spirit to MIT but with two key additions: an explicit patent grant from contributors, and an explicit requirement to document significant changes. It does not grant trademark rights.

The patent grant makes Apache 2.0 preferable for projects with many contributors or corporate sponsors — it reduces the risk of patent lawsuits against downstream users. Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPL-2.0, but is compatible with GPL-3.0 and later.

BSD 3-Clause License

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

BSD 3-Clause is a short, permissive license that adds one constraint MIT does not: you cannot use the names of the original authors or contributors to endorse or promote products derived from the software without specific written permission.

In practice, the rules are nearly identical to MIT. Choose BSD-3-Clause if the no-endorsement clause is important to you or your project has historical BSD heritage.

How to apply

Add a LICENSE file with the full BSD 3-Clause text at the root of your project, filling in the copyright owner and year. Per-file SPDX headers are optional but common:

Business Source License 1.1

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

The Business Source License (BUSL) is source-available today and converts to an open-source license (chosen by the licensor, typically Apache-2.0 or GPL) on a pre-declared “Change Date”, typically four years after release. Until that date, commercial use outside a declared “Additional Use Grant” is restricted.

It is popular with venture-backed infrastructure companies that want to ship source code without giving competitors a free path to offer the software as a managed service.

Elastic License 2.0

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Elastic License 2.0 (ELv2) is a short source-available license with three simple restrictions: you cannot provide the software as a managed service, you cannot circumvent license keys, and you cannot remove or alter licensing or copyright notices.

Everything else — use, modification, distribution, private use, commercial use in your own products — is allowed. ELv2 is much shorter than BUSL and does not have a conversion date.

ELv2 is not OSI-approved.

End-User License Agreement

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

An End-User License Agreement (EULA) is a binding contract between a software vendor and an end user. Commercial software almost always ships with one. A typical EULA covers: licence grant (usually a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use), restrictions (no reverse engineering, no redistribution, no removing copyright notices), ownership, warranty disclaimer, limitation of liability, termination, and governing law.

The EULA published on this site is a starting point only. Jurisdictions differ on what is enforceable. Have a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction review the EULA before you ship.

GNU Affero General Public License v3.0

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

AGPL-3.0 is a strong copyleft license with one critical addition over GPL-3.0: offering the software over a network counts as “distribution.” Anyone who modifies the software and makes it available as a network service must make the complete corresponding source code available to users who interact with it.

This closes the “SaaS loophole” present in GPL-3.0, where a company can run a modified copy on its servers without ever distributing binaries and thus never triggering the copyleft requirement.

GNU General Public License v3.0

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

GPL-3.0 is a strong copyleft license. Anyone who distributes the software, modified or not, must make the complete corresponding source available under GPL-3.0. It includes an explicit patent grant and patent-retaliation clause.

It also includes anti-tivoization provisions — you cannot distribute GPL-3.0 software on hardware that prevents users from installing modified versions.

Pick GPL-3.0 when you want to make sure derivative works stay open. Pick AGPL-3.0 if you also want to close the loophole where software offered as a network service is not considered “distributed”.

GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

LGPL-3.0 is a “library” variant of GPL-3.0. If you modify the LGPL-3.0 library itself, your modifications must be released under LGPL-3.0. If you just use the library — link to it, call its APIs — your own code can stay under any license, even proprietary.

LGPL-3.0 is a good fit for reusable libraries where you want modifications to the library itself to stay open, but you are fine with the library being called from closed-source code.

ISC License

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

ISC is a permissive license produced by the Internet Systems Consortium. It is functionally identical to the simplified BSD license and the MIT license — use, modify, distribute, include the copyright notice — but uses even fewer words.

It is npm’s default license for new packages, which is why you’ll see it on a lot of small JavaScript libraries.

How to apply

Add a LICENSE file with the full ISC text, filling in the copyright year and holder. Per-file headers are optional but many projects add:

MIT License

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

The MIT License is one of the shortest and most permissive open-source licenses. It lets anyone use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and sell copies of the software, provided they include the original copyright notice and license text.

It is a good default for libraries and frameworks you want adopted as widely as possible. If you care about protecting against patent claims from contributors, consider Apache-2.0 instead — the patent grant is the main difference.

Server Side Public License v1.0

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

SSPL is MongoDB’s response to the AGPL “loophole”: if you offer the software as a managed service, you must also release under SSPL the source code of every program you use to offer that service — provisioning, monitoring, orchestration, backup. In effect, it is strong copyleft extended to your service stack.

The OSI rejected SSPL as not meeting the Open Source Definition, specifically on Criterion 6 (no discrimination against fields of endeavour). It is therefore fair-code / source-available, not open source.