time! I want to know what licence you mostly use for your F(L)OSS projects. Imagine, you don't have to comply with anyone, and you're free to choose. Which one you'll use?

I am also interested, which traits of a licence are important to you. Stating changes? Using the same licence? Attribution?

(Licences sorted from strongest to weakest. A poll can only have 4 choices, so some had to be aggregated; I tried to put the similar ones together)

I am personally on crossroads with this.

I mean, I kinda do want at least some form of attribution for my work, so Unlicense/WTFPL is a bit too weak for me. GPLv3 looks great in terms of sharing improvements, but it's just too clunky, and it's a hassle to fork such projects as one has to include the copy in literally every file.

So I'm kinda stuck with the MIT. While I like that it's permissive, I sometimes wish it would oblige others to open-source the modifications too

@NickKaramoff Usually (A)GPL, for something very small - MIT, for some awful experiments - WTFPL probably or no license at all

@yyp doesn't "no licence" usually mean "copyrighted"? 🤔

@NickKaramoff no, just put that thing out there, and I don't care if someone takes it. Probably like public domain

@yyp GitHub says otherwise — — but I personally also would treat "no licence" as "public domain" really. Kind of a grey area 🤷

@NickKaramoff One example: I didn't feel like adding a license file and not doing it wouldn't hurt as this is not even a complete project

@NickKaramoff And having a copyright on that would be even better since nobody should be using the thing I mentioned above 🙃


> and it's a hassle to fork such projects as one has to include the copy in literally every file

Really? Does GPL require that? I just put attribution in like one entry point file or don't do this at all

@NickKaramoff you can create your own license. No one is stopping you from.doing that

@lxzio I know — it just takes time and deep understanding of various copyright laws, which I currently do not have :(

@NickKaramoff no no . You can copy the GPL license and remove the parts which you feel is not worth forcing people to follow

@NickKaramoff I do GPL and MIT, mostly GPL though, because I want to ensure that everyone gets to benefit from things that are added,

@NickKaramoff I like GPL because it protect us from big companies who only want to take but don't give anything back. In the job environment in big companies I have heard about bosses who tell employers "Don't use GPL libraries because we cannot close the development". I am not against other licenses though and I think in the ideal world more permissive licenses should be the right way but with vulture companies I think for users is best GPL.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.