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.
