the MIT licence is the most permissive (just behind the “unlicenced” one)
everyone can do what they want with the source code.
in the GNU GPLv3, the users of the source code have to publish the source code if they use the product. I understant ALL the source code that include the original GPLv3 source code ? is it true ?
I’m searching for a licence where the users have to publish the source code of the modified original project if they use it in any product, free or commercial, but not have to publish their entire source code, just the part that came from the original source code.
is there a licence like that ?
is it the LGPLv3 ?
GitHub offers this page for helping to compare and choose one of them:
thanks Ricardo, I’ve already seen that.
but I still don’t know what licence should I choose for what I explained above !
If you can’t tell, then you should get a lawyer involved.
I am NOT a lawyer, but (in my opinion after reading those descriptions) its pretty clear to me that you want Mozilla Public License 2.0.
ah ok. so in fact LGPL and MIT seems the same but LGPL is for libraries only.
yes this one seems ok, but I can’t choose it when I create a new repository on github. the only available are those linked on the Ricardo post above.
You can just create a plain LICENSE file with that content. Your code, your rules.
What you’re describing sounds like the LGPL , changes to the original library have to be published but your project linked to it doesn’t.
Usually if you have MIT license for example then you have shared the origin of the code. By telling from where it came.
And if you only want people to have open source the part they got from you then, that is sort of it. Telling them where it came from, where people can then grab it from you.
(It is after all always safer to get code from its original source than from some middle man which may or may not have altered it in some way)
thanks you all for your comments.
I’m going with Mozilla licence for now… will see.