What is the best alternative to GPLv2?
Pro Protects user freedom in the cloud
Designed to ensure that end-users can access source code, even when applications run on remote web servers.
Pro Ensures that derivitave works are also protected by strong copyleft
Works extending the original must be licensed in a similar fashion to the AGPL, preserving and extending the user freedoms originally granted.
Pro Protects the author
The author of the software avoids any risk for how the software may be used by others.
Pro Short and simple
The MIT license is one of the shortest licenses of all the major recognized open source licenses. The full text is just 3 paragraphs long.
Pro Prevents lock-in
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.
Pro Explicitly allows sublicensing
The license specifically mentions that the code can be used in other software that might have a less permissive license.
Con Does not protect long-term user freedom
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...
Con Does not prevent others from taking and selling your software
The MIT license is permissive enough that anyone can take your code, rebrand it and sell it.
Con Ambiguous name
The MIT License is sometimes known as the Expat License or the X11 License because it has been used with different names in different places.
Pro Can be used with proprietary software
BSD licensed software can be used with proprietary software.
Pro Short and simple text
This license has one requirement with 2 clauses, both of whcih are related to the distribution of the license itself.
Pro Protects the author
The author of the software avoids any risk for how the software may be used by others.
Con Nothing prevents someone else from making money off of your software
The 2-clause BSD license is permissive enough that anyone can take your code, rebrand it and sell it.
Pro Easy to use licensing decision tool helps customizing the license type
The Creative Commons has an easy-to-understand utility for choosing which style of the Creative Commons you want to use.
Pro Can restrict commercialization
A popular optional clause to the creative commons is the "Attribution-NonCommercial" clause, which restricts work to non-commercial use.
Con Not recommended for software
Creative Commons does not recommend using CC licenses for software.
Pro Removes any possible licensing issues
Everything under the Unlicense is part of the public domain, which means that anything can be done with it.
Pro Protects the author
The author of the software avoids any risk for how the software may be used by others.
Pro Unlicensed code is easy to find
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 specifi...
Con Hasn't been reviewed by OSI
The OSI (Open Source Initiative) is an organization that promotes open source software and they commonly review open source licenses. However, they have decided not to review Unlicensed because it has not been written by legal professionals.
Con Gives no control of how the code is used
Putting the code in the public domain leaves it open to abuse.
Help millions of people make better decisions.
Each month, over 1.7 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.