What is the best alternative to Creative Commons?
Here’s the Deal
Slant is powered by a community that helps you make informed decisions. Tell us what you’re passionate about to get your personalized feed and help others.
The MIT/Expat license doesn't protect against open-source code being taken (without payment) and used in proprietary software. This is harmful to user freedom because it lets future development be taken out of the public domain and instead moved into non-free programs. In addition, it doesn't protect against software patents being used to attack user freedom. Unlike the Apache 2.0 and GPLv3 licenses, the MIT/Expat was written before software patents became a problem and doesn't include a patent release. See More
The license basically allows anyone to do whatever they want with the code as long as the original copyright and license notice is included along with the copy of the code. The code can be used for commercially, privately, it can be modified and it can be distributed. See More
When using public code hosts such as GitHub and BitBucket it is suggested to use the filename UNLICENSE instead of the more traditional LICENSE or COPYRIGHT to store the license so it's easier to find unlicensed code. Additionally, the first line of the license is worded in a unique way specifically to allow searching for it with search engines. See More
Help millions of people make better decisions.
Each month, over 2.8 million people use Slant to find the best products and share their knowledge. Pick the tags you’re passionate about to get a personalized feed and begin contributing your knowledge.