I'm rebuilding an app that I made few years ago to make it open-source and free from big company dependencies (for example replacing Firebase with Appwrite)... Now, since it's already live on Codeberg, I think it would be good to give it a license but I'm super new to FOSS licenses and so I don't know how to move... Which one would you suggest me?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Yujiri@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Depends on what terms you want. Summary of popular options:

GPL is meant to ensure that any derivative works are also FOSS
LGPL is similar, but the definition of "derivative work" is narrower, so proprietary projects can use its code as long as they aren't extending the LGPL work itself. Often used for libraries
AGPL is like GPL, but also applies if someone is using your software as the backend for a network service rather than a program they distribute to users. A company can make a derivate work of GPLed software and offer access to it as a network service without being subject to the GPL terms because making something available as a network service doesn't count as distributing the derived work.
ISC (or MIT or BSD, all roughly the same) is meant to not project derivative works. It makes your project FOSS but allows proprietary derivatives

[–] leo_mantovani@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Thank you! And, if for example someone forks my code and start distributing his new forked app, is there a license which would force him/her to credit the original project?

[–] Yujiri@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure all of them require that, it's a pretty mild requirement so even people who don't like copyleft (like many BSD people) are fine with having that requirement in their licenses

[–] JoeBidet@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not only about credit. All should do this. It's a very very basic requirement.

Just imagine:

Windows 23 is released and contains some of your code. made proprietary, as part of this immense piece of garbageware. your name is in a list somewhere, after a third click in a long boring screen of legal documents that nobody reads.

are you OK with that? (that's BSD/MIT)

Windows 23 developpers are thinking of using your code. their lawyers make them check the license, and think "damn! our evil plan is foiled! he's using the GPL! we cannot re-use his software until our own software is released under the GPL and obviously we plan on selling proprietary crap to ppl who would run away scared if they can actually look at the code of what they bought. we'll have to plagiarize this guy by rebuilding his software, nobody will know."

do you want that? (that's ^*^GPL)

[–] leo_mantovani@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh... None of these 2 scenarios looks Hood to me... But I guess I prefer the GPL one if I have to chose