0

As title. Can anyone help me confirming whether my intuition about whether the section "License decision diagram" of on Codeberg.org could be wrong? Quoted those lines from the link:

Do you either want to allow people to create proprietary (closed-source) projects with your code,
 or do you expect your project to remain small (e.g. less than 300 lines)?

   No --> Do you want to allow people to create a closed-source service,
          for example by using your code on a web server without releasing the source code?
          No --> We recommend using the AGPL-3.0-or-later licence
          Yes --> Do you want to allow people to use your code as a library and not
                  disclose the source-code of their main program?
                  No --> we recommend using the GPL-3.0-or-later licence
                  Yes --> we recommend using the LGPL-3.0-or-later licence
   Yes --> Do you want to be able to sue users of your code
           for patent infringement implemented in the code?
           No --> We recommend using the Apache-2.0 licence
           Yes --> We recommend using the MIT licence

Reasoning:

  • I don't understand why "be able to sue users" will imply I should choose MIT license, according to the diagram. I thought MIT license is a permissive license that not intended to do that.
  • I don't understand why "Do you want to allow people to create a closed-source service" will lead to the recommendation "we recommend using the GPL-3.0-or-later license", according to the diagram. Isn't that GPLv3 a copyleft license which, if I understand correctly, would mean that any derivative of that original project should be copyleft one? So, I believe this section is completely wrong.

Since I just started to learn about FOSS-related things recently so I still need some experts on this field to confirm for me before posting so comments / making PRs there to correct/improve the docs.

6
  • 1
  • 1
    @apsillers Hi, thanks for helping me identify related questions. I didn't know what keyword(s) to search so making this possibly a duplicate question. Will read the links immediately.
    – Rainning
    Jan 16, 2023 at 13:10
  • 2
    Sure thing, welcome to Open source.SE! This a great nuanced question that may have already been answered elsewhere. I hope those answer your question; if they do we can close this a duplicate (to avoid fragmenting similar answers across different question-posts) or, if there anything that's still unclear, you can edit to ask about whatever aspect you still need clarity on.
    – apsillers
    Jan 16, 2023 at 13:13
  • 1
    @apsillers Hi, I believe both of the questions you provided are required to answer my OP after some time reading them. (so very thank you for the searching!) What should I do to mark both links when flagging my post as a duplicate in this case?
    – Rainning
    Jan 16, 2023 at 14:10
  • 2
    No worries, I can edit the set of duplicates, so I've added the other one as well. Glad we could help!
    – apsillers
    Jan 16, 2023 at 16:41

0

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.