» Wizard
Pick a license in under a minute
Answer a short series of questions. You can back out at any step. Results are recommendations, not legal advice.
» Step · q-cc-commercial
Do you allow commercial use?
Creative Commons separates commercial from non-commercial use. Commercial includes anything done primarily for money.
» Step · q-copyleft
How much should downstream users be required to share back?
Permissive licenses let people do almost anything with your code, including relicensing. Copyleft licenses require derivative works to stay under the same (or compatible) license.
» Step · q-data-attribution
Do you require attribution when others use the data?
Data licenses look a lot like Creative Commons but address databases and sui generis rights in EU law.
» Step · q-fair-code
What do you most want to prevent?
Fair-code licenses are source-available. They are not OSI-approved.
» Step · q-kind
What are you licensing?
Pick the category that most closely matches the material you want to cover. You can re-run the wizard for a different category.
» Step · q-network
Should the copyleft also apply to software offered as a network service (SaaS)?
AGPL closes the 'SaaS loophole' — running a modified copy as a network service counts as distribution.
» Step · q-openness
Should the material qualify as open source?
Open source means an OSI-approved license that permits commercial use, modification, and redistribution. Fair-code licenses are source-available but restrict at least one of these.
» Step · q-patents
Do you want an explicit patent grant from contributors?
A patent grant protects downstream users from patent claims by the contributors. Apache 2.0 includes one; MIT does not.
» Step · q-proprietary
What is the distribution model?
Proprietary templates are starting points. Have a lawyer review before shipping.
» Result · r-cc-by
Recommended
Attribution required; any use allowed including commercial.
» Result · r-cc-by-sa
Recommended
Attribution plus share-alike. Wikipedia uses this.
» Result · r-cc-nc
Recommended
For non-commercial-only, see CC-BY-NC-4.0 (add in phase 2). Until then CC-BY-4.0 is the closest listed here.
» Result · r-cc-nd
Recommended
For no-derivatives, see CC-BY-ND-4.0 (add in phase 2).
» Result · r-data-attribution
Recommended
Attribution-only for content and data. For pure databases in EU jurisdictions consider ODbL-1.0 (phase 2).
» Result · r-fair-busl
Recommended
Business Source License — restricted today, converts to an open source license after a fixed period.
» Result · r-fair-commercial
Recommended
Source-available with commercial-use restrictions.
» Result · r-fair-saas
Recommended
Source-available licenses that restrict offering the software as a managed service.
» Result · r-network-copyleft
Recommended
AGPL closes the SaaS loophole. If AGPL is too aggressive, GPL-3.0 is the next step down.
» Result · r-permissive-patent
Recommended
A permissive license with an explicit patent grant.
» Result · r-permissive-short
Recommended
Short permissive licenses. MIT is the default in most ecosystems.
» Result · r-prop-eula
Recommended
Starting point for a closed-source end-user license agreement. Must be reviewed by a lawyer.
» Result · r-prop-reserved
Recommended
All rights reserved notice. Pair with an NDA or internal policy; do not distribute externally.
» Result · r-public-domain
Recommended
CC0 waives all rights to the fullest extent possible. For software, the Unlicense is a common alternative (phase 2).
» Result · r-strong-copyleft
Recommended
Strong copyleft — distributed derivatives must be under the same license.
» Result · r-weak-copyleft
Recommended
Weak copyleft — modifications to licensed files stay under the license, but combining with other code is fine.