The main problem with choosing a free software license is that they're a giant pile of legalese rather than a succient explanation of their goals.
MIT, BSD: Do whatever you want with this software, but it's not our responsibility (baseline)
Apache: Same but with extra protections for your trademarks/brand
GPL: Requires derivative software and software to also use the GPL license
LGPL: Requires derivatives to also use the LGPL license, but doesn't consider linking to a library to be a derivative
AGPL: Requires derivatives to also use the AGPL license, but considers communication over the network to be derivative
All free/open source licenses ensure the following four freedoms:
- The freedom to use the software for any purpose
- The freedom to study and modify the source code
- The freedom to distribute copies of the software in source or binary form
- The freedom to distribute your modifications to the software
@sir MPL: like LGPL but on per-file level.
@sir I don't think Apache's biggest distinction is its treatment of trademarks (the GPL has something similar where it says you may refuse to give trademark grants without invoking liberty-or-death), but rather its patent grant. At least, I often hear people say the patent grant is why they pick Apache over 3-clause-or-less BSD.
@sir apache (if you meant 2) deals explicitly with patents (which is why companies like google use it, for protection)
@sir also, all of them require attribution and/or not deleting license notices from the code
@sir They must be. You don't want loose ends. Try TLDRLegal at tldrlegal.com, though.
@alvarezp fun fact: the guy behind tldrlegal.com is the same asshole behind the anti-commons clause
@sir What's that?
@sir the anti-common clause, I didn't find it as such.
@alvarezp it's a nonfree license designed to make open source projects stop being open source
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!