Software Licence¶
Yes indeed you are able to produce software but would it matter if you do not licence it properly ?
This is where a hunchback code-dweller and a gentlemen differ. One day supreme-court shall summon you for assisting [-----] (it is because they used your FOSS library), if you set your licence wrong.
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/
Open Source¶
Main authority for open source is: Open Source initiative. And it is run by board of directors. Not that it's an official authority but it's something.
For a software to be open source: source code should be publicly accessible. Fellas at the OSI (Open Source initiative) disagree with this definition. In their definition: - Free to redistribute - Accessible source code - Free to use
Well the thing is... OSI's definition is actually for FOSS (free open-source software) not open source. There is a big-ass line in between. I don't agree with their definition, but aside from certain clauses it's alright.
MIT¶
"It’s basically like saying take my piece of code/project, do whatever you want (commercially/non-commercially) but don’t blame me if anything goes wrong"
Whatever you want includes: they take and alter the code, implement it in their system. And release it as a part of proprietary software. They can even take the code and release it for commercial use as it is. Kinda crazy.
GNU General Public License (GPL) v3.0¶
If you deriver an open source, it should be open source.
Similar to MIT, except it doesn't allow the consumer to change the licence. In other words: if released under GPL v3, stays under GPL (v3). So in essence, it is one of the most open-source licence ever. It forces copies/forks to keep up the GPL licence so they also produce open-source. It's pretty contagious. Therefore big-corpo hates it.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
Apache License 2.0¶
Some witch craft. As Fantastic once said: "Man I don't even know, it's crazy.". I guess in essence it is "do whatever you wan't, don't sue me."
FreeBSD / BSD 2-Clause License¶
Similar to MIT
New BSD License / BSD 3-Clause¶
Similar to BSD 2, difference is they can't use the project's name nor contributer(s) name. Good way of staying low.
Mozilla Public Licence¶
Proprietary¶
What, licence for proprietary ? Haven't heard that term in years.