

Ask HN: what's the best guide to code licenses you've come across? - stevejalim

I've got a working grasp of open-source code licences, but I'm determined to get my head more fully around them, so that I can be 100% confident about the side-effects of using open-source projects with a given licence.<p>I want to end up with a good, working grasp of GPL (incl versions), AGPL, BSD, MIT and as many other [relatively] common setups as I can, and be able to explain them quickly and correctly to others. To get me on the road to that, it'd be great to get a few pointers to good/trusted sources of knowledge that are relatively easily graspable.<p>I am not a lawyer, and I am busy making things, so summaries/grids/lookup tables are particularly welcome. :o)
======
ecaron
I've found Jeff Atwood's article on the topic to be the most useful selector
of when what license is appropriate:
[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-
any-...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-
license.html)

~~~
xxqs
good one, missing only one important license: CDDL

------
apo
By far the best work on this subject has been written by Lawrence Rosen in his
book "Open Source Licensing":

<http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm>

Free to read online - or buy a hardcopy.

Unlike less useful works, Rosen actually provides a model for thinking about
open source models. Even if you only care about commercial software licensing,
this this information in this book will be valuable.

------
bkyan
Don't forget MPL2 at <http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/>

------
xxqs
it's very easy:

GPL: nobody can distribute your software as a closed-source system. Nobody can
also link your software with non-opensource ones.

BSD, MIT, Apache: anyone is allowed to do anything with your code, provided
that reference to your name is preserved.

If you code an open-source product, but it's intended for enterprise
integration with lots of non-opensource components, go for a non-GPL licence,
like MIT.

In most other cases, GPL is everything you need.

For non-software products that you want to share, use Creative Commons
licenses.

~~~
ecaron
_For non-software products that you want to share, use Creative Commons
licenses._

That selection in itself isn't easy, which is probaby why they have a page
dedicated to that decision: <http://creativecommons.org/choose/>

~~~
xxqs
of course, every such decision needs research and reading. Nothing is easy :)

