I’m rebuilding an app that I made few years ago to make it open-source and free from big company dependencies (for example replacing Firebase with Appwrite)… Now, since it’s already live on Codeberg, I think it would be good to give it a license but I’m super new to FOSS licenses and so I don’t know how to move… Which one would you suggest me?

  • @Yujiri@lemmy.ml
    12•2 years ago

    Depends on what terms you want. Summary of popular options:

    • GPL is meant to ensure that any derivative works are also FOSS
    • LGPL is similar, but the definition of “derivative work” is narrower, so proprietary projects can use its code as long as they aren’t extending the LGPL work itself. Often used for libraries
    • AGPL is like GPL, but also applies if someone is using your software as the backend for a network service rather than a program they distribute to users. A company can make a derivate work of GPLed software and offer access to it as a network service without being subject to the GPL terms because making something available as a network service doesn’t count as distributing the derived work.
    • ISC (or MIT or BSD, all roughly the same) is meant to not project derivative works. It makes your project FOSS but allows proprietary derivatives
    • @leo_mantovani@lemmy.mlOP
      0•2 years ago

      Thank you! And, if for example someone forks my code and start distributing his new forked app, is there a license which would force him/her to credit the original project?

      • @Yujiri@lemmy.ml
        2•2 years ago

        I’m pretty sure all of them require that, it’s a pretty mild requirement so even people who don’t like copyleft (like many BSD people) are fine with having that requirement in their licenses

      • Joe Bidet
        0•2 years ago

        It’s not only about credit. All should do this. It’s a very very basic requirement.

        Just imagine:

        • Windows 23 is released and contains some of your code. made proprietary, as part of this immense piece of garbageware. your name is in a list somewhere, after a third click in a long boring screen of legal documents that nobody reads.

        are you OK with that? (that’s BSD/MIT)

        • Windows 23 developpers are thinking of using your code. their lawyers make them check the license, and think “damn! our evil plan is foiled! he’s using the GPL! we cannot re-use his software until our own software is released under the GPL and obviously we plan on selling proprietary crap to ppl who would run away scared if they can actually look at the code of what they bought. we’ll have to plagiarize this guy by rebuilding his software, nobody will know.”

        do you want that? (that’s *GPL)

  • Joe Bidet
    2•2 years ago

    A political answer here:

    • if you want your code to be part of a movement for freedom, to be part of creating a “bubble of freedom” that will serve the world while protecting itself and its users, but fully serve only those whose interests are aligned with the objectives of freedom: go *GPL.
    • if you don’t give a f%ck, that you think code is not political and do it just for fun, go to a “business-friendly” (some call them “permissive” but i tend to see freedom to do business at somebody else’s exprense rather “exploitative” than anything myself…), *BSD*MIT*etc.
    • @federico3@lemmy.ml
      2•2 years ago

      It’s incorrect to call BSD/MIT “not political”. It allows proprietization and does not protect users and authors from tivoization, patents and trademarks.

      • Joe Bidet
        1•2 years ago

        I didnt write that “BSD/MIT is not political” as i agree with your statement. I said “if you think that code is not political”, as it is a statement you often hear from ppl who don’t want to think too much about license (or about anything else but code). I was describing a symptom, a state of mind (that make ppl opt for BSD and other “exploitative-free” licenses).