reference
Open source licenses, explained
Permissive licenses maximize adoption; copyleft licenses keep forks open. Choosing a license is the first real product decision an open source project makes. Every license below links to the tools using it.
Short, simple, the default choice: do what you want, keep the copyright notice, no warranty.
Like MIT but with an explicit patent grant — why many big-company projects pick it.
GPL plus a network clause: if you run modified code as a service, you must publish the source.
Derivative works must ship under GPL too. The standard "share-alike" license.
MIT plus a ban on using contributors names to endorse derived products.
The older GPL; what the Linux kernel stays on. Not compatible with GPL-3.0.
Modifications to MPL files stay open; the rest of your codebase can remain proprietary.
Effectively MIT without the "and documentation" flourish. Do what you want, keep the notice.
GPL with a linking exception — proprietary apps may use the library without inheriting copyleft.
Functionally identical to MIT, originated by BSD developers.
Eclipse Foundation license: commercial-friendly with a source-protection clause for the module itself.