
The GPL vs. The MIT License: Which License to Use (2012) - open-source-ux
https://lukasa.co.uk/2012/05/GPL_vs_MIT_Which_License_To_Use/
======
vog
I prefer the ISC license over MIT or BSD, because it is equivalent to them,
but even shorter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license)

------
mixedCase
>If you honestly don’t care at all, use the WTFPL (the Do What The Fuck You
Want To Public License).

Unless you don't want the legally risk-averse to avoid your code, in which
case you use the CC0, which is the best fit to put your code into the public
domain.

~~~
aylons
Well, that would be caring, at least a little.

------
jszymborski
it might be because usage has picked up in the ~7 years since this article
came out, but the Apache license is seen more and more frequently, and I think
that it's definitely a better alternative to the MIT license given that it has
a patent grant clause which is increasingly more important.

Also, the MPL is an interesting alternative to GPL, although it's definitely
not pervasive and it's a little bit of a bastard child of the LGPL and MIT
licenses.

~~~
ftyjfdff
The MPL seems closer in aim to the LGPL, without requiring one to dynamically
link code instead of statically

------
ftyjfdff
No one uses Apache outside of the ASF??

How about Android?

It's probably one of the most common licences used on Android (and considering
that most apps use AppCompat - an Apache licensed project - most apps have to
be Apache or GPL3 legally)

