heavensteeth 17 hours ago | next |

> Well, although SPDX counts 665 licences, there really just 3 main kinds:

> 1. licences with no restrictions (like MIT)

> 2. licences that require you credit the original author ("attribution" licences, including the Apache Licence)

> 3. licences that require you credit the original author and that derivative works have the same licence ("copyleft"/"share-alike" licences like the GPL)

MIT requires attribution, doesn't it? MIT (permissive) / MPL (non-viral copyleft) / AGPL (viral copyleft) seems like a better grouping to me; I rarely find myself reaching for any other licenses.

I do wish there were a shorter copyleft license though. I appreciate how transparent and readable MIT is.

WorldMaker 8 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

The MS-RL is still the shortest, clearest copyleft license I'm aware of it. It is nearly as readable as the MIT. https://opensource.org/license/ms-rl-html

It's just weird that it has "Microsoft" in the name. Though I suppose not much weirder than MIT license being named after a University or BSD license being named after a University's Unix distribution.

Also even Microsoft doesn't use the MS-RL much anymore having standardized more on MPL where they use copyleft licenses and Apache License most everywhere else.

exabrial a day ago | prev | next |

My favorite is EUPL: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/introduction-eup...

Essentially licensing your software like this behaves like ASL unless you: modify + distribute (either binaries or by creating a service). Then you owe the changeset back, but it does not have a viral clause like the AGPL.

This solves a large part of the greedy AWS problem (Amazon copying entire open source projects and contributing nothing back), but also strikes a balance and allows API Compatibility.

debugnik 10 hours ago | root | parent |

I really like the EUPL on paper, and I've been told by Joinup's legal support that it should be a valid "change licence" for BUSL, in case I ever want that.

But I'm concerned about the compatibility clauses becoming a loophole for hostile forks. Then again, half the point of the EUPL is admitting that only a court can judge what is or isn't a derivative work (unlike the legal fiction in the GPL's viral clause), so I guess these uncertainties are part of the deal.

hiAndrewQuinn 9 hours ago | prev | next |

I'm a big fan of CC0. It's my go-to for any side projects I work on, for all kinds of reasons, but mostly just because I feel it minimizes economic deadweight loss by incurring zero additional transaction costs.

jimjag 11 hours ago | prev | next |

Most of the licenses discussed in the article are demonstrably NOT open source licences at all.

vegadw 7 hours ago | prev | next |

This may be a hot take, but I love the un-usable for business licenses and the fun multiple lowest-to-highest paid worker and ethical restrictions (No use in weapons, for example) licenses, but not for their direct restrictions but rather because almost no large business will ever want to touch them, but small players and individuals don't care.

Those licenses let me say "This is open to the individual and small business, but not a mega corp" without actually needing to define a hard cut off.

Besides, it's not like most developers of FOSS software that use these have the time/money/energy to bother to sue over infringement anyway, so practically this is their main purpose.

yarg 14 hours ago | prev | next |

The moment that hits 666, it ticks right on over to 667.

People have their beliefs; and not only does no-one want to release The Satanic License, no-one's gonna want it to remain that unlucky for long.

Weird little monkeys we are, for the amazing things we can be.

feoren 10 hours ago | root | parent | next |

> no-one wants to release The Satanic License

You hang out with a different crowd than I do then. Perhaps the Satanic Temple should release an open source license to claim the #666 spot.