What are the pros and cons of different types of open-source licenses for your project and your income?

Permissive licenses offer a world of collaboration and adoption by allowing anyone to use, modify, and distribute code freely. They simplify the process, encouraging widespread contribution and integration into various projects. However, the openness comes with trade-offs. The lack of obligation for others to share modifications might lead to missed opportunities for improvement or loss of control over the direction of your code. Additionally, the inability to enforce restrictions on commercial use might limit potential income or lead to unequal competition. The balance lies in weighing the benefits of collaboration against the potential loss of control or commercial limitations.

Permissive Licenses:- Pros: Permissive licenses, such as MIT or Apache, offer flexibility, allowing extensive use and modification without imposing stringent conditions. This fosters wide adoption, encourages collaboration, and facilitates integration into commercial projects. Cons: While these licenses promote broad usage, they may not provide strong protection against proprietary exploitation. Developers may contribute to your project without being obligated to share modifications, potentially impacting your control over the project's evolution. Balancing openness with project sustainability is crucial when considering permissive licenses.

For larger corporate entities, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses do make the least challenging to adopt. However, this also means that broader adoption and potential contribution from a well-funded organization might materialize. These licenses are also preferred for the end product Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). There are exceptions to this, of course, but permissive licenses are generally more "market-friendly."

Les licences permissives comme MIT/BSD/Apache permettent une large utilisation, modification et distribution du code, favorisant l'adoption. Cependant, elles ne garantissent pas le partage des améliorations ni n'empêchent l'utilisation commerciale.

GPL licenses have varied fear and adoption standards. GPL2 Vs. GPL3, for example, is somewhat different. In addition, many of these licenses tend to have corporate guidance and acceptance policies.

Copyleft Licenses: Pros: Copyleft licenses, like GPL, enforce reciprocity, ensuring that modifications and derivative works are also open source. This maintains a strong commitment to open collaboration and prevents proprietary appropriation of the codebase. Cons: The strong reciprocity requirement can be a deterrent for commercial entities looking to integrate or distribute the software in proprietary products. It may limit broader adoption but ensures that modifications to the codebase remain open, preserving the project's open nature. Balancing between openness and commercial viability is a consideration with copyleft licenses.

Les licences copyleft comme GPL/LGPL/AGPL exigent que les modifications soient partagées sous la même licence, protégeant la liberté et encourageant les contributions. Mais elles sont plus restrictives et peuvent limiter la compatibilité.

Dual Licenses: Pros: Dual licensing, offering both permissive and copyleft options, provides versatility. It allows users to choose the license that aligns with their needs. For commercial entities, a proprietary license option can be offered, generating revenue and encouraging contributions. Cons: Managing dual licenses adds complexity, and enforcing compliance can be challenging. Balancing the interests of the open-source community with commercial goals requires careful consideration. Dual licensing can also create confusion for contributors and users regarding their rights and obligations.

Les licences doubles proposent le code sous une licence open source et une propriétaire, bénéficiant des avantages des deux. Mais cela peut être complexe à gérer, créer de la confusion et réduire les contributions.

In open source licensing, "familiar" is the most important attribute a license can have. So little legal precedent exists to interpret the boundaries of open source licenses, this is an area where creativity or innovation are NOT rewarded.

D'autres licences open source existent (domaine public, Creative Commons, licences éthiques) avec des objectifs spécifiques comme le bien social ou la vie privée. Mais elles peuvent manquer de reconnaissance et limiter la portée.

Developers typically hate to look at / consider legal aspects. However, intellectual property, license assignments, or community members' contributions can sometimes be "exciting" problems as the project matures. One of the schemes is the "Developer Certificate of Origin" ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.4-rc2&id=f1fcbaa18b28dec10281551dfe6ed3a3ed80e3d6#n384 for example) for keeping ahead of the problem. Another scheme to use is the adoption of SPDX notation ( See https://spdx.dev/ids/) as part of coding guidelines.

Pros and Cons of Open-Source Licenses: Pros: ?? Community Collaboration: Encourages contributions from a diverse community. ?? Innovation: Allows for innovation and improvements by a broader audience. ?? Cost: Reduces development costs and accelerates project growth. Cons: ?? Commercial Use Concerns: Some licenses may restrict commercial use. ?? Fragmentation: Diverse licenses can lead to compatibility and integration challenges. ?? Income Challenges: May limit revenue streams for commercial open-source projects.

When selecting a license, it is important to consider where your project fits in the stack. Generally, the lower or more "foundational" the project is, the greater pressure there is to have conformity. You can harness that pressure to encourage contributions back and perhaps choose a restrictive license. If your project is higher in the stack, then the ecosystem usually tolerates multiple approaches, and so licensing under a permissive license might be necessary to ease adoption.

Bien que les développeurs n'aiment généralement pas les aspects juridiques, la propriété intellectuelle et les contributions des membres peuvent poser des problèmes passionnants au fur et à mesure que le projet progresse. Le "Developer Certificate of Origin" est un schéma possible.