|
|
|
|
|
|
by LanceHaynie
4073 days ago
|
|
|
That kind of depends on how you want to approach your project... The MIT license is very open and let's anyone do just about anything with it, of course they have to let people know where the code came from giving you due credit. The Apache license is similar, but throws in some verbiage about patents. GPL is probably the most restrictive in my view, it forces any forks of your code to also be listed under GPL. Check this out for more info: http://opensource.org/licenses/ |
|
|
Those who prefer the GPL license like it because it places the fewest restrictions on users down the line, by restricting developers from doing things that are against user freedoms.
If your view is on the first link of the chain then GPL is certainly restrictive. Though I suggest you look at the AGPL to see something which is more restrictive under that viewpoint.
That said, you are certainly correct that the three major approaches are MIT, or Apache for bigger projects where patents may be an issue, or GPL. These are also the main three listed at http://choosealicense.com/ .
It comes down to what why the OP wants to "protect" the software. What shouldn't people be able to do with the software?