I’m rebuilding an app that I made few years ago to make it open-source and free from big company dependencies (for example replacing Firebase with Appwrite)…
Now, since it’s already live on Codeberg, I think it would be good to give it a license but I’m super new to FOSS licenses and so I don’t know how to move… Which one would you suggest me?
if you want your code to be part of a movement for freedom, to be part of creating a “bubble of freedom” that will serve the world while protecting itself and its users, but fully serve only those whose interests are aligned with the objectives of freedom: go *GPL.
if you don’t give a f%ck, that you think code is not political and do it just for fun, go to a “business-friendly” (some call them “permissive” but i tend to see freedom to do business at somebody else’s exprense rather “exploitative” than anything myself…), *BSD*MIT*etc.
It’s incorrect to describe using BSD/MIT “not political”. It allows proprietization and does not protect users and authors from tivoization, patents and trademarks.
I didnt write that “BSD/MIT is not political” as i agree with your statement. I said “if you think that code is not political”, as it is a statement you often hear from ppl who don’t want to think too much about license (or about anything else but code). I was describing a symptom, a state of mind (that make ppl opt for BSD and other “exploitative-free” licenses).
Depends on what terms you want. Summary of popular options:
GPL is meant to ensure that any derivative works are also FOSS
LGPL is similar, but the definition of “derivative work” is narrower, so proprietary projects can use its code as long as they aren’t extending the LGPL work itself. Often used for libraries
AGPL is like GPL, but also applies if someone is using your software as the backend for a network service rather than a program they distribute to users. A company can make a derivate work of GPLed software and offer access to it as a network service without being subject to the GPL terms because making something available as a network service doesn’t count as distributing the derived work.
ISC (or MIT or BSD, all roughly the same) is meant to not project derivative works. It makes your project FOSS but allows proprietary derivatives
Thank you! And, if for example someone forks my code and start distributing his new forked app, is there a license which would force him/her to credit the original project?
It’s not only about credit. All should do this. It’s a very very basic requirement.
Just imagine:
Windows 23 is released and contains some of your code. made proprietary, as part of this immense piece of garbageware. your name is in a list somewhere, after a third click in a long boring screen of legal documents that nobody reads.
are you OK with that? (that’s BSD/MIT)
Windows 23 developpers are thinking of using your code. their lawyers make them check the license, and think “damn! our evil plan is foiled! he’s using the GPL! we cannot re-use his software until our own software is released under the GPL and obviously we plan on selling proprietary crap to ppl who would run away scared if they can actually look at the code of what they bought. we’ll have to plagiarize this guy by rebuilding his software, nobody will know.”
this website seems very biased to me as it is written by a Microsoft company.
it uses overly complex legal mumbo jumbo to describe the copyleft licenses, while describing the non-copyleft ones in friendly terms “A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring…” making them more appealing somehow.
it mentions a permission to PATENT things, with all licenses. when software patents must be banned, and in practices only exist in some weird loophole in the EU. While FSF site reads as "GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program’s contributors and redistributors. " (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html )
it propagates the meme that allowing ppl to make proprietary crap out of your software is “permissive”. like if having the right to own slaves would give you… more freedom…?
This page has existed long before GitHub was owned by Microsoft, so that’s not really a meaningful claim
My reading of the patent stuff is that the licenses that mention them disallow the authors from patenting the software, but I agree that that’s not super clear from the page itself
Permissive is the established term for such a license, I don’t know what else you’d call it that isn’t offensive
A political answer here:
It’s incorrect to describe using BSD/MIT “not political”. It allows proprietization and does not protect users and authors from tivoization, patents and trademarks.
I didnt write that “BSD/MIT is not political” as i agree with your statement. I said “if you think that code is not political”, as it is a statement you often hear from ppl who don’t want to think too much about license (or about anything else but code). I was describing a symptom, a state of mind (that make ppl opt for BSD and other “exploitative-free” licenses).
if u write ur program in Mandarin u wont need any license cuz no corporation will touch that
Are you saying there’s no Chinese corporation? 🤔
none that programs in mandarin yet huehuehue
Depends on what terms you want. Summary of popular options:
Thank you! And, if for example someone forks my code and start distributing his new forked app, is there a license which would force him/her to credit the original project?
It’s not only about credit. All should do this. It’s a very very basic requirement.
Just imagine:
are you OK with that? (that’s BSD/MIT)
do you want that? (that’s *GPL)
Oh… None of these 2 scenarios looks good to me… But I guess I prefer the GPL one if I have to chose
I would love to see a good comparison between all the different licenses
The tables here are more clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-software_license#Comparison
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ covers the most popular at least
this website seems very biased to me as it is written by a Microsoft company.