License choice motivation

[tijlleenders]

Nice project, wish you luck!

Just wondering why the license is Apache 2.0 - instead of something that prevents the real possibility of a fork to closed source when things get interesting.

[danielteberian]

I never thought about that. What would you recommend I use?

[tijlleenders]

Thanks for the interest. I'm no expert and no lawyer so don't believe a word I say.
I also have to warn you it's a rabbit-hole most people don't go down - but since you're a lawyer-in-training it might be a fit :).

TLDR:

• If you don't care too much about making money - but you do want to protect your project from being usurped by commercial entities go AGPLv3
• If you want to go commercial use Apache 2.0
• If you don't care at all then go Public domain or MIT
• Don't choose some obscure license no one understands ; it's too much friction

I all depends on your personal goals for the project. Together with others, Adam Jacob has done some nice work reflecting on this.

Why do you want it to be open source?
Everything starts as proprietary (your creation) - and you choose to 'let go of your rights' - for whatever motivation - on a triangle surface between:

• Oblige freedom ; GPL or AGPL (if you want to protect your OS from being streamed from behind a network - similar to the Microsoft plans for moving Windows OS fully to the cloud)
• Oblige freedom - but with commercial interests/compatibility protected ; Apache 2.0 or source available which doesn't actually qualify as open source
• No obligations - do whatever you like ; public domain / MIT

Once you 'let go of your right' and others start contributing under the new license you can't change licenses anymore - unless they all agree.
If you're the only one contributing - you can change your mind any time - it's still all your 'property' to decide upon.

Here's a map to get you started from a broader article on open data and code :

Hope this helps!