4 ms·
Aside from the stats, which are not really surprising, I still find it very hard to get my head around licensing and I bet that this is the main reason why MIT
by Kovah 7y ago
Aside from the stats, which are not really surprising, I still find it very hard to get my head around licensing and I bet that this is the main reason why MIT is used. MIT is indeed the only license that is really understandable.
The mentioned choosealicense.com is not really helpful with choosing a license because it not really explains all the legal terms used, in my opinion. There are many blog articles out there but to this day I couldn't find a single overview that describes each of the major licenses in a regular-human way. And this overview is what I would need. Simple language, tailored to the most important questions: copyright, attribution, what can both non-commercial and commercial users do and what not, and what are my rights as the owner.
If you have any resources on this please share it!
- brudgers 7y agoThe only way to understand the fundamentals of licensing is to hire a lawyer. Because if you are unwilling to hire a lawyer, it doesn't matter how you license the software or whether you license it or not. The only person who can enforce the license for your software is you. And that requires paying lawyers. If you really care about what people do with your code, closed source is the way to go. On the other hand, the big difference between licenses is how easy it is to incorporate contributions. That is why Linux thrived under GPL. It's why the formality of Apache's process is well suited for corporate contributions where participation will be vetted by the legal department...and why Apache is less suited for an ecosystem like Javascript.