Source code permissions
Determine whether users can inspect, modify, and redistribute your source code.
Software licensing toolkit
Find the right software license for your project
Compare popular open-source and proprietary licenses. Answer a few questions about your project to explore licensing options that may fit your development goals.
Understand your options
What does a software license determine?
A software license establishes the permissions and conditions under which other people can use, modify, copy, and distribute your software. Choosing one affects collaboration, commercial distribution, contributions, and future development.
Commercial use
Understand whether a license permits commercial use, redistribution, and inclusion in commercial products.
Distribution obligations
Compare attribution, notice, source-code, patent, and copyleft-related conditions.
Interactive recommendation
Software License Advisor
Describe how you plan to develop and distribute your software. The advisor will identify licenses worth examining and explain the reasoning behind its suggestions.
Before you decide
Important licensing considerations
- Consider the licenses of third-party libraries and dependencies.
- Determine whether your project is distributed or only hosted as a service.
- Check contributor agreements and copyright ownership.
- Review patent, trademark, attribution, and notice provisions.
- Check whether the selected license is compatible with your dependencies.
Important: This tool provides general
educational suggestions. It does not provide legal advice
or determine license compatibility for your complete project.
Your preliminary result
License recommendations
Primary suggestion to investigate
SPDX identifier:
Other licenses to consider
License directory
Explore popular software licenses
Compare common licensing models and understand their general characteristics before selecting one for your project.
MIT License
SPDX: MIT
The MIT License allows users to use, copy, modify, distribute, sublicense, and sell copies of the software, provided the copyright notice and permission notice are included.
Often considered for:
Small libraries, personal projects, utilities, web applications, and projects that prioritize broad adoption.
Small libraries, personal projects, utilities, web applications, and projects that prioritize broad adoption.
Apache License 2.0
SPDX: Apache-2.0
Apache License 2.0 permits commercial use, modification, distribution, and sublicensing. It includes express patent licensing provisions and conditions concerning notices and contributions.
Often considered for:
Commercial-friendly open-source projects, developer frameworks, infrastructure tools, and enterprise software.
Commercial-friendly open-source projects, developer frameworks, infrastructure tools, and enterprise software.
GNU GPL v3
SPDX: GPL-3.0-only
GPL version 3 permits use, modification, and distribution. When distributing covered derivative works, corresponding source code and GPL licensing obligations generally apply.
Often considered for:
Applications and projects intended to remain free and open source when redistributed in modified form.
Applications and projects intended to remain free and open source when redistributed in modified form.
GNU AGPL v3
SPDX: AGPL-3.0-only
AGPL version 3 includes GPL-style obligations and an additional requirement concerning users interacting remotely with modified versions over a network.
Often considered for:
Open-source server applications and network services where maintaining software freedoms for remote users is important.
Open-source server applications and network services where maintaining software freedoms for remote users is important.
GNU LGPL v3
SPDX: LGPL-3.0-only
LGPL version 3 permits use and distribution of libraries under conditions intended to allow certain applications to link with the library under different terms.
Often considered for:
Reusable software libraries that should remain open source while allowing certain proprietary applications to use them.
Reusable software libraries that should remain open source while allowing certain proprietary applications to use them.
Mozilla Public License 2.0
SPDX: MPL-2.0
MPL 2.0 requires covered modifications to MPL-covered files to remain available under MPL terms when distributed, while allowing those files to be combined with differently licensed files.
Often considered for:
Projects that want modifications to covered files to remain open while allowing integration into larger products.
Projects that want modifications to covered files to remain open while allowing integration into larger products.
BSD 3-Clause
SPDX: BSD-3-Clause
BSD 3-Clause permits redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, subject to copyright, disclaimer, and non-endorsement conditions.
Often considered for:
Libraries, developer utilities, research software, and projects that prefer a permissive license.
Libraries, developer utilities, research software, and projects that prefer a permissive license.
Eclipse Public License 2.0
SPDX: EPL-2.0
EPL 2.0 allows commercial use and distribution while applying copyleft obligations to certain modifications and contributions covered by the license.
Often considered for:
Enterprise development tools, professional software projects, and component-based applications.
Enterprise development tools, professional software projects, and component-based applications.
Proprietary License
SPDX: LicenseRef-Proprietary
A proprietary license defines the permissions granted by the copyright owner. The terms can restrict redistribution, modification, commercial use, or access to source code.
Often considered for:
Commercial applications, private products, paid software, and projects where the owner wants to control redistribution.
Commercial applications, private products, paid software, and projects where the owner wants to control redistribution.
Side-by-side comparison
Compare software license characteristics
This overview highlights general differences. Exact obligations depend on the full license text and the way software is used, modified, combined, and distributed.
| License | Model | Commercial use | Closed derivatives | Patent grant | Network source requirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MIT License
MIT
|
Permissive | Yes | Generally yes | No explicit patent grant | No network source disclosure requirement |
|
Apache License 2.0
Apache-2.0
|
Permissive | Yes | Generally yes | Yes, express patent grant | No network source disclosure requirement |
|
GNU GPL v3
GPL-3.0-only
|
Strong copyleft | Yes | Generally no for covered derivatives | Yes | No special network-use source disclosure requirement |
|
GNU AGPL v3
AGPL-3.0-only
|
Network copyleft | Yes | Generally no for covered derivatives | Yes | Source offer requirement for modified versions used over a network |
|
GNU LGPL v3
LGPL-3.0-only
|
Weak copyleft | Yes | Possible for certain applications | Yes, through GPLv3-based provisions | No AGPL-style network requirement |
|
Mozilla Public License 2.0
MPL-2.0
|
File-level copyleft | Yes | Possible for separate files | Yes, express patent grant | No AGPL-style network requirement |
|
BSD 3-Clause
BSD-3-Clause
|
Permissive | Yes | Generally yes | No express patent grant | No network source disclosure requirement |
|
Eclipse Public License 2.0
EPL-2.0
|
Weak copyleft | Yes | Possible for certain combined works | Yes | No AGPL-style network requirement |
|
Proprietary License
LicenseRef-Proprietary
|
Closed source | According to your terms | Yes | Depends on contract | Depends on contract |
The table is a simplified educational comparison, not a substitute for reviewing the actual license text.
How to choose
Which licensing model fits your project?
Start with the permissions and obligations you want to grant. These are broad starting points rather than universal rules.
Permissive licensing
Consider MIT, Apache 2.0, or BSD when you want to allow broad reuse, including use in commercial products, subject to the license conditions.
Strong copyleft
Consider GPL when you want covered distributed derivative works to remain under GPL-compatible terms.
Network copyleft
Consider AGPL when the network-use obligations for modified software are important to your project.
Library licensing
Consider LGPL or MPL when you want a more specific copyleft approach for reusable components or files.
Before publishing
Software licensing checklist
Review these items before publishing a repository or distributing a software product.
- Confirm who owns the project's copyright.
- Review all third-party dependencies.
- Check compatibility between included licenses.
- Add the correct license text to your repository.
- Preserve required copyright and attribution notices.
- Document any additional terms and contribution policies.
Explore more
Related developer tools
Continue exploring software development and technology planning resources on Droope.org.
Questions and answers
Software license FAQ
Answers to common questions about software licensing and open-source project distribution.
A software license is a legal instrument that defines how software may be used, copied, modified, distributed, and sometimes sublicensed. The actual permissions and obligations depend on the license terms.
MIT is often chosen for its relatively short and permissive terms. Apache 2.0 is another common permissive choice, particularly when an express patent grant is important. Simplicity does not remove the need to review the terms.
Both are permissive licenses that allow commercial use and redistribution. Apache 2.0 contains more detailed conditions and an express patent license, while MIT is shorter and does not include an explicit patent grant.
Both are copyleft licenses. GPL generally focuses on obligations associated with distributing covered software. AGPL adds a provision concerning users who interact remotely with a modified version over a network.
Many open-source licenses allow commercial use, including MIT, Apache 2.0, GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, BSD, and EPL. However, commercial use does not mean that all redistribution, attribution, source-code, or other obligations disappear.
That depends on who owns the copyright and the licenses of included contributions and dependencies. If you do not own all relevant rights, you may need permission from contributors or need to comply with existing license conditions.
No. It provides general educational information and preliminary license suggestions. It does not analyze your complete source code, dependencies, contracts, jurisdiction, or business arrangements. Consult a qualified lawyer for important licensing decisions.
Get in touch
Have a suggestion or correction?
Contact Droope.org with feedback, corrections, or suggestions for additional developer tools.