We use cookies to understand how the site is used and to display ads. Analytics and advertising only run after you accept. You can change your choice anytime. Privacy policy

Skip to content
devvkit

devvkit / dev

Open Source License Picker

Pick the right license for your project with a goals-based decision wizard.

Step 1: What are you building?

Step 2: What matters to you?

Check all that apply: each goal shifts the recommendation.

Recommendation

MIT

PERMISSIVE

Do anything: just keep the license notice.

Key terms:

Commercial useModificationDistributionPrivate useSublicensing

When to pick: Maximum adoption, libraries, teaching projects, personal tools: the default safe choice.

No patent grant. No protection against closed-source derivatives.

Also consider: BSD-3-Clause

MIT + no-endorsement clause (protects your project name).

When trademark/brand protection matters. Similar adoption to MIT.

No patent grant. The no-endorsement clause is narrow.

Full comparison

LicenseFamilyCopyleftPatent grantTrademarkCommercialScore
MITpermissiveNoneNoNoYes12
Apache-2.0permissiveNoneYesIndirectYes8
BSD-3-ClausepermissiveNoneNoYes (clause 3)Yes10
GPL-3.0copyleftStrong (viral)YesNoYes1
AGPL-3.0copyleftStrong (viral)YesNoYes0
MPL-2.0weak-copyleftFile-levelYesNoYes7
The UnlicensepermissiveNoneNoNoYes9

Copy license text

MIT
MIT License

Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Full text
BSD-3-Clause
BSD 3-Clause License

Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Full text

share this tool

Pick the right open source license for your project. Tell the wizard what you are building (library, app, or SaaS) and what matters to you: adoption, patents, corporate contributors, or keeping derivatives open: and get a scored recommendation across 7 popular licenses with a full comparison table.

>[x]Features
  • -Goals-based scoring across 7 popular licenses
  • -Context-aware recommendations: library, app, or service
  • -Full comparison: copyleft strength, patent grants, trademark
  • -Copy-ready license text for the top two picks
  • -Plain-English guidance on when each license wins
>>Use Cases
  • >Choosing a license when creating a new repository
  • >Evaluating a license change for an existing project
  • >Explaining copyleft vs permissive to a team
  • >Understanding what a license allows before contributing

Frequently Asked Questions

>Which license should I choose if I want maximum adoption??
MIT is the default for maximum adoption. It is the most widely recognized license, allows commercial use, modification, and distribution, and requires only that the copyright notice is retained.
>What is the difference between MIT and Apache-2.0??
Both are permissive, but Apache-2.0 adds an explicit patent grant and contribution terms. That makes it the safer pick for corporate contributors, especially for larger or patent-sensitive projects.
>When does AGPL-3.0 make sense??
AGPL-3.0 includes a network clause: if you run modified AGPL code as a hosted service, users must be offered the source. Choose it when you want to prevent cloud providers from reselling your work without sharing modifications.
>Can I change my license later??
Only if you are the sole copyright holder or have written permission from every contributor. Once others contribute, the license is effectively locked: this is why the license decision matters early.
>Does my license choice affect contributor adoption??
Yes. Corporate contributors often have legal teams that flag copyleft licenses like GPL and AGPL. Permissive licenses (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD) are typically approved without review, so they attract more contributions.