mirror of
https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com
synced 2024-12-21 20:30:10 +01:00
4aa540f154
This is a **draft**, probably will be controversial, definitely needs wordsmithing. Fixes #380 "No clear message on why to choose an open source license" -- added line under heading Fixes #335 "Feedback from John Sullivan talk on license choosers" -- remaining items were (roughly) to not surface patents at this level, and to surface choice between allowing proprirary/closed source or not Fixes #239 "Consider discussing ecosystems with an already predominant license" (well, it doesn't *discuss* but there's a page for that, unlinked til now) and makes the default recommendation of just about everyone -- use exisitng project/community's license if applicable -- prominent on the site Closes #48 "Proposed modified workflow: make permissive/copyleft and patents orthogonal" though probably not in way submitter would favor. I could be convinced that Apache-2.0 should be featured rather than MIT because of the former's express patent grant, but as it stands I'm not sure the complexity of Apache-2.0 (and for a weak grant, relative to GPLv3) is worth it relative to MIT. There's some value in the first license a user looks at being really easy to understand. The continued popularity of MIT and simialar ISC and BSD-2/3 seems to indicate people want that simplicity. And where are the holdups based on patents supposedly infringed by open source projects under licenses without an express patent grant that could not have happened had those projects been under Apache-2.0? Please educate me! :) Any and all feedback most welcome.
79 lines
2.2 KiB
HTML
79 lines
2.2 KiB
HTML
---
|
||
layout: default
|
||
class: home
|
||
hide_breadcrumbs: true
|
||
title: Choose an open source license
|
||
permalink: /
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
<p>An open source license protects contributors and users. Businesses and savvy developers won’t touch a project without this protection.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2>
|
||
<span>{</span>
|
||
Which of the following best describes your situation?
|
||
<span>}</span>
|
||
</h2>
|
||
<ul class="triptych situations clearfix">
|
||
<li class="patents">
|
||
<a href="existing">
|
||
<span class="triptych-sprite lightbulb"></span>
|
||
<h3>I’m contributing to or extending an existing project.</h3>
|
||
</a>
|
||
<p>
|
||
Use the <a href="existing">existing project’s license</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p>
|
||
If the existing project doesn’t have a license, ask its maintainers to <a href="no-license#for-users">add a license</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</li>
|
||
<li class="whatever">
|
||
<a href="licenses/mit">
|
||
<span class="triptych-sprite three-arrows"></span>
|
||
<h3>I’m feeling permissive.</h3>
|
||
</a>
|
||
<p>
|
||
The <a href="licenses/mit">MIT License</a> is short and to the point. It lets people do almost anything they want with your project, including to make and distribute closed source versions.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p>
|
||
{% include using-sentence.html license-id="mit" %}
|
||
</p>
|
||
</li>
|
||
<li class="copyleft">
|
||
<a href="licenses/gpl-3.0/">
|
||
<span class="triptych-sprite circular"></span>
|
||
<h3>I’m feeling reciprocal.</h3>
|
||
</a>
|
||
<p>
|
||
The <a href="licenses/gpl-3.0/">GNU GPLv3</a> also lets people do almost anything they want with your project, <em>except</em> to distribute closed source versions.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p>
|
||
{% include using-sentence.html license-id="gpl-3.0" %}
|
||
</p>
|
||
</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h2>
|
||
<span>{</span>
|
||
What if none of these work for me?
|
||
<span>}</span>
|
||
</h2>
|
||
<ul class="triptych see-more clearfix">
|
||
<li>
|
||
<h3>My project isn’t software.</h3>
|
||
<p>
|
||
<a href="non-software">There are licenses for that</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</li>
|
||
<li>
|
||
<h3>I want more choices.</h3>
|
||
<p>
|
||
<a href="licenses">More licenses are available</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</li>
|
||
<li>
|
||
<h3>I don’t want to choose a license.</h3>
|
||
<p>
|
||
<a href="no-license">You don’t have to</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</li>
|
||
</ul>
|