Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ballard 4709 days ago
Oversimplified refresher for anyone wanting to know what we're talking about:

Least restrictive

  * MIT/2,3,4-clause BSD/Apache (pretty much anything, the terms are clear (except Apache))
  * LGPL (usually for libraries that can link to non GPL stuff)
  * GPLv2 (if you change the source and ship product, you must reveal the source. can't link with other licenses) 
  * GPLv3 (closed the Tivo loophole)
  * Affero GPL (no services)
Most restrictive

Without a license being specified, it's difficult/impossible to include a project in anything commercial.
1 comments
mehdim 4709 days ago
from http://www.tldrlegal.com/

GPLv2 : You may copy, distribute and modify the software but you must relicense any changes and your entire project under GPLv2 and disclose all the source code

GPLv3 : You may copy, distribute and modify the software as long as you track changes/dates of in source files and keep modifications under GPL. You can distribute your application using a GPL library commercially, but you must also provide the source code

AGPL : The AGPL license differs from the other GNU licenses in that it was built for network software. You can distribute modified versions if you keep track of the changes and the date you made them. As per usual with GNU licenses, you must license derivatives under AGPL. It provides the same restrictions and freedoms as the GPLv3 but with an additional clause which makes it so that source code must be distributed along with web publication

The most restrictive for me for commercial use is GPLv2, because you have to open source ALL the project, not only the modified part. With GPLv3 and AGPL, just the modifications of the source code , not all the project. It is a question of point of view about "restrictions".

link