A software license is a legal agreement that defines how a given piece of software can be used. For software developers who may want to exercise certain rights, permissions, and control over how the work is used, modified, and shared by others, choosing a software license is an important decision.

Some developers may want to place strong restrictions over how their software can be used. Others, however, may choose to license their software with few or no restrictions. This may be because they want their software to be as widely used as possible, or perhaps they oppose restrictive software licenses on philosophical grounds.

Regardless of their reasoning, developers can accomplish this by implementing an open-source software license. Broadly speaking, open-source software licenses make the source code available for use, modification, and distribution based on agreed-upon terms and conditions. There are many different open-source software licenses, and they vary based on the restrictions a creator may want future users to abide by.

Licenses -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzq4asJegKY

Apache

The Apache License is one of the most permissive and business-friendly licenses available, making it a popular choice for both open-source and commercial projects. Here are some key features of the Apache License 2.0 that relate to commercial use:

Minimal Restrictions: The Apache License allows you to freely use, modify, and distribute the licensed software. This includes using the software in commercial products or services without restrictions on charging money or providing the software as part of a paid service. No Copyleft: Unlike some other open-source licenses, Apache v2 does not have a copyleft clause that requires you to release derivative works under the same license. You are free to incorporate Apache-licensed software into proprietary projects without the obligation to disclose the source code of your own extensions or modifications. Patent Grant: The license explicitly grants patent rights from contributors to users, protecting users from patent claims by contributors related to their contributions to the software. Redistribution: You can redistribute the software in source or binary form, with modifications or without, provided that you meet certain conditions. These conditions include: Providing a copy of the license. Marking any modifications clearly. Stating any changes made to files. If redistributed in binary form, including a copy of the license and, if provided with the distribution, the attribution notices in the documentation and/or other materials. No Warranty: The license is granted on an “as is” basis and does not provide warranties of any kind, which is typical for open-source licenses. This means that the user assumes all risks of using the software. Because of these features, Apache License 2.0 is considered suitable and safe for commercial use

The MIT License, Mozilla Public License (MPL), and GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) are all popular open-source licenses, but they come with different terms and conditions that affect how software can be used, modified, and redistributed. Here’s a breakdown of each:

MIT License

The MIT License is one of the most permissive and straightforward open-source licenses available.

Key Features:

Minimal Restrictions: Allows you to use, modify, copy, and redistribute the software in any form, either modified or unmodified. Commercial use is allowed. No Copyleft: There are no copyleft requirements, meaning you are not required to release derivative works under the same license. Requirement: You need to include the original copyright and license notice in any copies of the software. No Warranty: The software is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind. Commercial Usage: The MIT License’s permissive nature makes it highly favorable for commercial purposes, as it imposes minimal constraints on how the software can be utilized or integrated into other projects.

Mozilla Public License (MPL) 2.0

The MPL is a free and open-source license that is more restrictive than MIT but less so than GPL. It’s a middle ground offering some copyleft benefits.

Key Features:

File-level Copyleft: The MPL’s copyleft applies only to files that contain MPL-licensed material. This means that changes to these files must be shared under MPL, but new files don’t need to be. Commercial Use: You can use the software in commercial projects, but modifications to MPL-covered files must be shared. Compatibility with Other Licenses: MPL software can be combined with proprietary files or files under other open-source licenses in a larger project. Patent Rights: Grant of patent rights from contributors to users. Commercial Usage: MPL allows the commercial use of the software, including modifications, as long as the modifications to MPL-covered files are made available under the same license. This makes it suitable for businesses that are willing to contribute back modifications of the open-source code they use.

GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3

GPLv3 is a copyleft license that ensures that software remains free and open source.

Key Features:

Strong Copyleft: All modified and extended versions of the project must be free and open source under the same GPL license. Tivoization: GPLv3 prevents tivoization, which are practices that can prevent modified versions from running on their intended hardware. Patent Protection: Offers an explicit grant of patent rights and protection against patent treachery. Compatibility and Linking: GPL software can be tricky to combine with proprietary software, as all combined and derived works must also be released under the GPL. Commercial Usage: While you can sell GPL-licensed software, any distributed copies must include source code or a written offer to provide the source code. This can be restrictive for commercial applications that do not intend to open source their proprietary enhancements or derivatives.

Summary MIT is the most permissive, allowing for broad commercial use and integration into proprietary software without many restrictions. MPL provides a balance, offering some of the benefits of copyleft while allowing proprietary combinations under certain conditions. GPLv3 is best for those who wish to ensure their software remains free and open source in all future iterations, which might limit its commercial applicability depending on how the software is intended to be used.

Yes, the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) is indeed an open-source license. Here’s a summary of its key features:

Key Features of the EUPL

  • Open Source Nature: The EUPL meets the definition of open source, allowing the free use, modification, and redistribution of the software it covers.
  • Copyleft License: It is a copyleft license, which means that any derivative works created from EUPL-licensed software must also be distributed under the EUPL or a compatible license, ensuring that modifications remain open source.
  • Compatibility: The EUPL is designed to be compatible with several other popular open source licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) versions 2 and 3, the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) version 3, and others. This allows for interoperability between projects using different open source licenses.
  • Multilingual and Multijurisdictional: The EUPL is available in all 23 official languages of the European Union and is governed by the laws of the EU Member State where the licensor has their seat, or by Belgian law if outside the EU. This makes it specifically tailored to the European legal environment.
  • Distribution and Communication: Licensees are granted rights to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, communicate, and sublicense the work, applicable to any media and formats, both known currently and invented later.
  • Moral and Economic Rights: The license respects both the moral rights of authors, which are particularly significant in EU law, and the economic rights associated with copyright ownership.

Purpose of the EUPL

The EUPL was created by the European Commission with the intention of providing a standardized license that can be used by European administrations using open source software. It helps ensure legal clarity and ease of use across different jurisdictions within the European Union, making it a practical choice for public and private entities engaging in software development and distribution across Europe.

In summary, the EUPL is a robust open-source license that combines the flexibility of open-source distribution with specific provisions catering to the legal and linguistic diversity of the European Union.

ISC

the ISC License is a well-known open source license. It is recognized by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as a simple and permissive license. The ISC License is similar to the MIT License but is even more simplified. It allows the use, modification, and distribution of the software, free of charge, provided that the license conditions, including the copyright notice and permission notice, are included in all copies.

The ISC License is particularly favored for its clarity and brevity, which reduces the legal complexity often associated with software licenses. This makes it a popular choice among software developers who want to share their work with minimal restrictions.

BSD3

Yes, the BSD 3-Clause License, often referred to as the “New BSD License” or “Modified BSD License”, is considered a fully open source license. It is one of the permissive free software licenses, which means it places minimal restrictions on how the software can be redistributed. This makes it highly popular for the distribution of open source software.

The key features of the BSD 3-Clause License are:

  1. No Redistribution Restrictions: You can distribute the original or modified versions of the software without restrictions, as long as you meet the conditions of the license.
  2. 3 Clauses: The license contains three main conditions that must be met when redistributing the software or derivative works:
    • Clause 1: Requires the original copyright notice, list of conditions, and the disclaimer to be included in the software and its documentation.
    • Clause 2: States that the names of the software’s authors or contributors cannot be used to endorse or promote products derived from the software without prior written permission.
    • Clause 3: A disclaimer stating that the software is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind.

Because of its permissiveness, the BSD 3-Clause License is fully compatible with the Open Source Definition as maintained by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). This means it grants users the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute the software, making it fully open source.

OSL

Yes, the Open Software License (OSL) v. 3.0 is indeed an open source license. It is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), which is a recognized authority in the open source community for reviewing and approving licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

The OSL v. 3.0 is a strong copyleft license, meaning it requires that derivative works of licensed software must also be distributed under the same license terms. This license includes terms for copyright licensing, patent licensing, and conditions related to the distribution of the software and its derivative works, ensuring that the software remains free and open. It is similar to the GNU General Public License (GPL) but is considered more suitable for software that is distributed over a network, like web applications, due to its explicit provisions concerning “External Deployment.”

Best Open Source Software Licenses for Commercialization

How to Choose the Right Open Source License

the unlicense

https://github.com/ericmurphyxyz/ericmurphy.xyz https://github.com/ericmurphyxyz/ericmurphy.xyz?tab=Unlicense-1-ov-file#readme