1
0
mirror of https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com synced 2024-12-22 21:00:10 +01:00
choosealicense.com/index.html
Mike Linksvayer 4aa540f154 Add existing project situation, leave 1 permissive, 1 copyleft choice
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.
2016-06-06 18:31:14 -07:00

79 lines
2.2 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

---
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 wont 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>Im contributing to or extending an existing project.</h3>
</a>
<p>
Use the <a href="existing">existing projects license</a>.
</p>
<p>
If the existing project doesnt 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>Im 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>Im 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 isnt 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 dont want to choose a license.</h3>
<p>
<a href="no-license">You dont have to</a>.
</p>
</li>
</ul>