» License Finder
Pick a license in under a minute
Answer a short series of questions. You can back out at any step. Results are recommendations, not legal advice.
» Step · q-cc-commercial
Do you allow commercial use?
Creative Commons separates commercial from non-commercial use. Commercial includes anything done primarily for money.
» Step · q-copyleft
How much should downstream users be required to share back?
Permissive licenses let people do almost anything with your code, including relicensing. Copyleft licenses require derivative works to stay under the same (or compatible) license.
» Step · q-data-attribution
Do you require attribution when others use the data?
Data licenses look a lot like Creative Commons but address databases and sui generis rights in EU law.
» Step · q-fair-code
What do you most want to prevent?
Fair-code licenses are source-available. They are not OSI-approved.
» Step · q-kind
What are you licensing?
Pick the category that most closely matches the material you want to cover. You can re-run the finder for a different category.
» Step · q-network
Should the copyleft also apply to software offered as a network service (SaaS)?
AGPL closes the 'SaaS loophole' — running a modified copy as a network service counts as distribution.
» Step · q-openness
Should the material qualify as open source?
Open source means an OSI-approved license that permits commercial use, modification, and redistribution. Fair-code licenses are source-available but restrict at least one of these.
» Step · q-patents
Do you want an explicit patent grant from contributors?
A patent grant protects downstream users from patent claims by the contributors. Apache 2.0 includes one; MIT does not.
» Step · q-proprietary
What is the distribution model?
Proprietary agreements are starting points. Have a lawyer review before shipping.
» Result · r-cc-by
Recommended
Attribution required; any use allowed including commercial use and modifications.
Why this fits
You are licensing content or media — not code. You want others to use, remix, and build on your work, including for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you. CC-BY-4.0 is the most permissive Creative Commons license that still requires attribution. It is the standard choice for open educational resources, photography, and open data.
» Result · r-cc-by-sa
Recommended
Attribution plus share-alike — derivatives must be released under the same or a compatible license. Wikipedia uses this.
Why this fits
You are licensing content or media and want to ensure that remixes and derivatives stay in the commons. CC-BY-SA-4.0 requires anyone who builds on your work to share under the same terms, while still allowing commercial use and modifications. This is the license Wikipedia and many open-knowledge projects use — it balances openness with a commitment to the commons.
» Result · r-cc-nc
Recommended
For non-commercial-only use, consider CC-BY-NC-4.0 (not yet in the catalogue). The closest listed license is CC-BY-4.0.
Why this fits
You want to restrict commercial use of your content. The best fit is CC-BY-NC-4.0, which requires attribution but prohibits commercial use. This license is not yet in the catalogue, but CC-BY-4.0 is the closest alternative listed here — it requires attribution while allowing commercial use, which is more permissive than your preference.
» Result · r-cc-nd
Recommended
For no-derivatives, consider CC-BY-ND-4.0 (not yet in the catalogue). The closest listed license is CC-BY-4.0.
Why this fits
You want to allow sharing but not modifications. The best fit is CC-BY-ND-4.0, which permits redistribution but prohibits derivative works. This license is not yet in the catalogue, but CC-BY-4.0 is the closest alternative — it allows both sharing and modifications, which is more permissive than your preference.
» Result · r-data-attribution
Recommended
Attribution-only for content and data. For pure databases in EU jurisdictions, also consider ODbL-1.0 (not yet in the catalogue).
Why this fits
You are licensing data or a database and want attribution but not share-alike. CC-BY-4.0 works well for datasets and content — it requires credit but allows commercial use, modification, and redistribution under any license. In EU jurisdictions, databases also have sui generis rights that CC-BY-4.0 may not fully address.
» Result · r-fair-busl
Recommended
Business Source License — restricted today, converts to an open-source license after a fixed period (typically 4 years).
Why this fits
You want the benefits of source-available now with a guaranteed path to open source later. BUSL-1.1 restricts commercial and production use until a declared Change Date, after which each version automatically converts to a standard OSS license (commonly Apache-2.0 or GPL). This is popular with venture-backed infrastructure companies that want to ship source code without giving competitors a free ride — but still promise eventual openness.
» Result · r-fair-commercial
Recommended
Source-available with commercial-use restrictions — free for non-commercial and development use, paid for production commercial use.
Why this fits
You want to share source code but restrict commercial use without a paid license. Elastic-2.0 allows free use for development, testing, and non-production environments, but requires a commercial license for production use. This model works well for infrastructure software where you want adoption but also a revenue path.
» Result · r-fair-saas
Recommended
Source-available licenses that prevent competitors from offering your software as a managed service.
Server Side Public License v1.0
Strong copyleft that extends to the entire stack required to offer the software as a managed service.
View details →Elastic License 2.0
Source-available with three simple limitations, the biggest being no-hosting-as-a-service and no trademark use.
View details →Why this fits
You want to make your source code available but prevent cloud providers from offering a competing managed service without contributing back. SSPL-1.0 requires anyone offering the software as a service to open-source their entire management stack. Elastic-2.0 takes a simpler approach by restricting the specific use case. Both are source-available, not OSI-approved open source.
» Result · r-network-copyleft
Recommended
AGPL-3.0 closes the SaaS loophole — running a modified copy as a network service counts as distribution. GPL-3.0 is the next step down if AGPL is too aggressive.
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
Network copyleft. Anyone who modifies and offers the software over a network must make the source available to users.
View details →GNU General Public License v3.0
Strong copyleft. Distributed derivative works must be released under GPL-3.0.
View details →Why this fits
You want strong copyleft that also applies when someone offers your software as a web service. AGPL-3.0 is the right default here: unlike GPL-3.0, it requires anyone who modifies and hosts the software to share their changes, even if they never distribute binaries. This is important for SaaS, cloud, and server-side projects. If AGPL is too restrictive for your use case, GPL-3.0 still covers traditional distribution.
» Result · r-permissive-patent
Recommended
A permissive license with an explicit patent grant from contributors to downstream users.
Why this fits
You want open source that stays permissive — others can use, modify, and relicense your code — but you also want patent protection. Apache-2.0 is the only permissive license that includes an express patent grant, which reduces the risk of patent lawsuits against your users. It also requires downstream projects to document significant changes.
» Result · r-permissive-short
Recommended
Short permissive licenses with minimal requirements. MIT is the default in most ecosystems.
MIT License
A short, permissive license. The de-facto default for many open-source ecosystems.
View details →ISC License
Functionally equivalent to a simplified MIT / BSD. Very short.
View details →BSD 3-Clause License
A short permissive license that additionally forbids using the author's name to endorse derived works.
View details →Why this fits
You want open source with as few restrictions as possible — others can do almost anything with your code. These licenses only require keeping the copyright notice. MIT is the most widely recognized; ISC is functionally equivalent but shorter; BSD-3-Clause adds a no-endorsement clause. For most projects, MIT is the safe default.
» Result · r-prop-eula
Recommended
Starting point for a closed-source end-user license agreement. Must be reviewed by a lawyer before use.
Why this fits
You are shipping closed-source software to end users and need a license agreement that restricts copying, modification, and redistribution. A standard EULA provides clauses for grant of license, restrictions, termination, and disclaimer of warranty. It is a starting point only — EULAs must be tailored to your product, jurisdiction, and business model.
» Result · r-prop-reserved
Recommended
All rights reserved notice. Pair with an NDA or internal policy; do not distribute externally without a license.
Why this fits
You are keeping the material confidential or internal, and do not intend to grant any license to the public. An 'all rights reserved' notice asserts full copyright protection and puts recipients on notice that no use is authorized without explicit permission. This is appropriate for internal tools, trade secrets, and materials shared only under NDA.
» Result · r-public-domain
Recommended
CC0 waives all copyright and related rights to the fullest extent possible. For software, the Unlicense is a common alternative.
Why this fits
You want to place your work in the public domain — no attribution, no restrictions, no copyleft. CC0-1.0 is the most comprehensive public-domain dedication, waiving all rights and not requiring attribution (though it does request it). It works for content, data, and code — though for software specifically, the Unlicense or 0BSD may be more conventional.
» Result · r-strong-copyleft
Recommended
Strong copyleft — anyone who distributes derived works must release the whole project under GPL-3.0.
Why this fits
You want open source with teeth. GPL-3.0 ensures that anyone who distributes your code — modified or combined with other code — must make the complete source available under the same license. It also includes an explicit patent grant and anti-tivoization provisions. This is the right choice when keeping the entire ecosystem open matters more than maximizing adoption.
» Result · r-weak-copyleft
Recommended
Weak copyleft — modifications to the licensed files stay under the license, but new files and linking code can use any license.
Mozilla Public License 2.0
File-level weak copyleft with a patent grant. A middle ground between permissive and strong-copyleft licenses.
View details →GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
Weak copyleft. Modifications to the library stay under LGPL; linking from other software is allowed.
View details →Why this fits
You want improvements to your code to stay open, but you do not want to force the entire project that uses your code to be open-source. Weak copyleft applies at the file level: changes to the licensed files must be shared, but code that links or imports them remains free. Choose MPL-2.0 for applications and libraries; choose LGPL-3.0 when your library competes with a proprietary alternative.