2

I'm in academia and I think that as a matter of principle, my code should be open source. It's not likely to have a lot of users. It might have none other than myself. I have it published on github, even if it might be just for the convenience of using the github interface.

How do I choose a suitable license for my project?

closed as too broad by bjb568, Andy, michaelpri, Raystafarian, ProgramFOX Jun 23 '15 at 17:45

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    This question is pretty broad. Can you give so more details on your code and what it will be used for? – bjb568 Jun 23 '15 at 17:45
  • if you consider it a matter of principle that software written in an academic context is free/open, and you don't want a future researcher to unfree it, then a copyleft license would suit you best - GPL3 or AGPL3 – d3vid Jan 7 '16 at 16:12
4

choose a license is an easy to use site that walks users through the selection process:
http://choosealicense.com/

Quoting from the site, If you really don't want to hold any patent or you just want to hold a simple licence you can go ahead with MIT licence.

The MIT License is a permissive license that is short and to the point. It lets people do anything they want with your code as long as they provide attribution back to you and don’t hold you liable.

If you want to hold any rights to your code you can use the Apache Licence.

The Apache License is a permissive license similar to the MIT License, but also provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.

If you think anyone can improve your code and distribute the newly created work, you can select the GPL licence.

The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations.

There are more licenses available such as Creative Commons etc.

  • 3
    While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. – bjb568 Jun 23 '15 at 17:46
  • not when they're archived by the wayback machine – albert Jun 23 '15 at 17:47
  • 2
    @albert But that's not a Wayback Machine link. – Nic Hartley Jun 23 '15 at 17:52
  • i didn't say it was...doesn't mean its not indexed – albert Jun 23 '15 at 17:54
  • 1
    The beginning of this answer sounds very much like an advertisement. When you recommend a product or service it's important to disclose or disclaim any conflicts of interest. – Air Jun 23 '15 at 18:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.