Open Source Licenses: Everything You Need to Know
Open source software forms the backbone of modern technology, accounting for up to 90% of today’s software stack, including frameworks, libraries, databases, operating systems, and countless standalone applications.
The benefits of open source are well-known, offering greater control and transparency. However, tension between open source and proprietary models often leads companies to move away from open source to safeguard their commercial interests. At the center of this debate lies the complex issue of licensing.
Understanding Open Source Licenses
Open source licenses fall into two main categories, as defined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI):
- Permissive Licenses
These licenses impose minimal restrictions on how software can be modified or distributed, making them appealing for commercial use. - Copyleft Licenses
These licenses offer similar freedoms but include a critical requirement: any modifications must be distributed under the same license, which can deter businesses that want to protect proprietary developments.
Within these categories are various licenses, each with distinct rules and implications. Additionally, some licenses, while not strictly open source, are noteworthy for developers.
Permissive Licenses
MIT License
The MIT License, originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1980s, is one of the most popular open source licenses. It is simple, concise, and widely adopted in projects like React and Ruby. The MIT License allows unrestricted use, modification, and distribution of software, provided the original copyright notice and license are included.
However, it lacks explicit patent rights, which can create legal uncertainty in software relying on patented technologies. Despite this, its simplicity makes it ideal for projects like web frameworks and programming languages.
Apache License 2.0
Published by the Apache Software Foundation in 2004, this license includes a patent grant, offering added protection against litigation. For instance, Google chose Apache 2.0 for its Android Open Source Project (AOSP) to encourage widespread adoption.
The Apache License is more detailed than the MIT License, trading simplicity for clarity on patent-related issues.
Other Permissive Licenses
- BSD Licenses: Available in 2-Clause and 3-Clause versions, with added restrictions like non-endorsement clauses.
- MIT No Attribution License (MIT-0): Similar to MIT but removes attribution requirements.
Copyleft Licenses
GNU General Public License (GPL)
Published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1989, the GPL is a strong copyleft license requiring all modified versions of software to remain open source.
- GPL 2.0 and 3.0: The third-most popular open source license, GPL 3.0 added patent grants and addressed “Tivoization,” where hardware manufacturers use GPL-licensed software but restrict modifications.
- Notable Users: WordPress uses GPL 2.0 or later, while Linux remains under GPL 2.0 due to creator Linus Torvalds’ objections to GPL 3.0 clauses.
GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL)
AGPL 3.0 extends GPL 3.0 to cover software run on servers, requiring modified versions to be made available even if only used across a network. This is particularly relevant for SaaS and cloud applications.
GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
A “weaker” copyleft license, LGPL is typically used for libraries. It allows proprietary software to link to the library without requiring the entire codebase to be open source, provided modifications to the library itself remain open.
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
The MPL operates at the file level, requiring only specific files to be open source, making it a less restrictive option for developers.
Public Domain and Creative Commons
For developers wishing to place their software entirely in the public domain, options like The Unlicense or Creative Commons CC0-1.0 exist. These tools allow creators to relinquish their rights but come with legal uncertainties in some jurisdictions.
The “Faux-pen” Source Movement
Some licenses mimic open source but don’t meet OSI’s standards:
- Server Side Public License (SSPL): Adopted by MongoDB, it imposes restrictions that conflict with open source definitions.
- Business Source License (BUSL): Used by MariaDB, it limits commercial use for a set period before transitioning to an open source license.
- Ethical Source Licenses: Such as the Hippocratic License, which restricts unethical uses of software.
Conclusion
Choosing the right open source license depends on a project’s goals, community involvement, and commercial aspirations. While permissive licenses prioritize simplicity and flexibility, copyleft licenses emphasize community collaboration and open access. Developers should carefully consider these factors to navigate the complex world of open source licensing effectively.
Also check: A New Era in Pregnancy Care: Innovations from Singapore.
