Free License Generator · AnytimeConvert

MIT License Copyright (c) 2026 Copyright Holder 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.

Understanding software licences

Permissive, copyleft, source-available — pick on purpose.

No licence = all rights reserved.

Code without an explicit licence is copyrighted by default. Other people may read it on GitHub but cannot legally use, modify, or redistribute it. The widespread habit of treating any public repo as fair-use is wrong, even if rarely enforced. Adding a LICENSE file is what makes a project legally usable. Without one, you've published source code you've also forbidden anyone to run.

Permissive: MIT, BSD, Apache.

Permissive licences let anyone do almost anything with the code — use, modify, redistribute, sell — as long as the copyright notice and licence text travel along. MIT (1988) is the shortest, ~170 words. BSD 2-clause and 3-clause are similar; the 3-clause adds a no-endorsement clause. Apache 2.0 adds an explicit patent grant and requires a NOTICE file. Modern libraries default to MIT or Apache; Apache for anything that might have patent risk.

Copyleft: GPL and friends.

GPL (Gnu Public License) requires that any distributed derivative work also be released under GPL. The "viral" property — if you link to GPL code in a product you ship, your product becomes GPL — is the reason GPL fell out of fashion for libraries. LGPL is GPL with a linking exception, allowing closed-source software to link against LGPL libraries. AGPL extends GPL's reach to network-accessed software ("if your users use the modified code over a network, you must share source"). AGPL is what companies use when they want to be open-source but block hosted SaaS competitors.

Source-available: BSL, Elastic, SSPL.

A newer category. Source-available licences publish the code but restrict commercial use — typically forbidding hosted-as-a-service offerings. Examples: BSL (Business Source License, MariaDB), ELv2 (Elasticsearch), SSPL (MongoDB). These are not open-source by the OSI definition (which requires no field-of-use restrictions), but the source is available, and most non-cloud users can use them freely. They're how companies respond to AWS forking their projects.

A worked choice.

A new utility library, want maximum adoption: MIT. A new utility library with patent risk: Apache 2.0. A new server product, want to allow self-hosting but block AWS from packaging it as a managed service: AGPL or SSPL. A closed-source corporate project that publishes code for transparency but doesn't grant rights: source-visible (custom terms). A research artefact you want to be used and cited: MIT plus a citation requirement in the README.

Pick a licence

goal → licence

Match the licence to the strategic constraint.

library → MIT/Apache ; server → AGPL/SSPL

= Pick on purpose

Compatibility is real.

Mixing licences in one project is allowed only if they're compatible. MIT and Apache can be combined freely. GPL can absorb MIT (the combined work is GPL). Apache cannot be combined into GPLv2 (patent-clause incompatibility); it works with GPLv3. SSPL is incompatible with most copyleft licences. Before bringing in a dependency, check the licence matrix — a single GPL dependency in an MIT product silently relicences the combined work.

Quick answers.

›Which license should I choose?

The MIT license is the most common for simple, permissive use. Use Apache 2.0 if you want to include patent grants, or GPL if you want to ensure all derivative works remain open-source.

›What is the Unlicense?

The Unlicense is a template for releasing your work into the public domain. It waives all copyright interest so others can use the software for any purpose without requirements.

›Does this tool provide legal advice?

No. This tool provides standard templates for information purposes only. Consult a legal professional if you have specific concerns about your intellectual property.

›Where do I put the license file?

Save the output as a text file named `LICENSE` or `COPYING` in the root directory of your repository. It is also common practice to include a shorter header at the top of your source files.

License Generator