Online Tool Store
· 5 min read
How to Choose an Open-Source License for Your Project
Heshan Fernando
Co-founder & COO
You’re about to push a project to a public repository and GitHub asks you to pick a license — MIT, Apache 2.0, GPL, and a handful of others show up in a dropdown, and unless you already know the legal and practical differences between them, it’s genuinely unclear which one fits what you actually want for the project. Picking the wrong one isn’t catastrophic, but it does have real consequences: a permissive license lets anyone use your code in a closed-source product with no obligation to share their changes back, while a copyleft license like GPL requires derivative works to remain open source too — a fundamentally different philosophy, not just different legal wording.
Most developers aren’t lawyers and don’t want to read full license texts to make this decision — they want a short set of questions that map to “here’s the license that matches what you’re trying to do.”
What actually differentiates the common licenses
Permissive licenses (MIT, Apache 2.0) allow essentially anyone to use, modify, and redistribute your code, including in proprietary closed-source products, with minimal obligations — usually just preserving the original copyright notice. Apache 2.0 adds explicit patent grant language that MIT doesn’t have, which matters more for projects concerned about patent litigation risk. Copyleft licenses (GPLv3, and the weaker copyleft MPL-2.0) require that derivative works also remain open source under compatible terms, which protects against your code being used in a closed-source product without giving back — a deliberate trade-off against maximum permissiveness. Noncommercial licenses like PolyForm Noncommercial restrict commercial use entirely, which is a different goal from either permissive or copyleft licensing — protecting against for-profit use rather than encouraging maximum reuse.
The right choice depends on what you actually want to happen to your code once it’s out there: maximum adoption with no strings attached, guaranteed openness of derivative works, or protection from commercial exploitation.
Why people get stuck here
- The differences are legal, not just naming conventions. MIT vs. Apache vs. GPL sound like similar options in a dropdown, but they represent genuinely different philosophies about what happens to derivative works.
- Most developers don’t want to read full license texts. Understanding the practical difference requires either reading dense legal language or trusting a summary, and most people default to whatever’s most familiar rather than what actually fits their goals.
- The choice has lasting consequences. Relicensing an already-published, actively-used project later is possible but genuinely disruptive, so getting it reasonably right upfront matters more than it might seem for a “just pick something” decision.
- Project goals aren’t always explicitly clear upfront. Some developers haven’t consciously decided whether they want maximum adoption or guaranteed open-source derivative works until a license picker forces the question.
What a good license chooser looks like
A small number of practical questions
Rather than requiring legal knowledge upfront, a good tool asks about your actual goals (maximum adoption? guaranteed open derivatives? no commercial use?) and maps the answers to an appropriate license.
Covers the licenses people actually use
MIT, Apache 2.0, MPL-2.0, GPLv3, and PolyForm Noncommercial cover the most common real-world choices across permissive, copyleft, and noncommercial philosophies.
Explains the reasoning, not just the recommendation
Understanding why a particular license was suggested, not just receiving a name, helps confirm the recommendation actually matches your intent.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Picking a license based on what’s most popular or familiar rather than what actually matches your goals for the project.
- Assuming all permissive licenses are functionally identical — Apache 2.0’s explicit patent grant is a meaningful difference from MIT for some use cases.
- Not considering how the license affects downstream users — a strong copyleft license can discourage adoption by companies unwilling to open-source their own derivative code.
- Publishing code with no license at all, which under default copyright law means nobody else has explicit permission to use it, defeating the purpose of an open-source release.
How to do it with License Chooser
Online Tool Store’s License Chooser suggests an open-source license — MIT, Apache 2.0, MPL-2.0, GPLv3, or PolyForm Noncommercial — from three quick questions, entirely in your browser.
- Open the License Chooser tool.
- Answer the three questions about your goals for the project.
- Review the suggested license and the reasoning behind it.
- Apply the license to your project’s repository.
Frequently asked questions
What’s the practical difference between MIT and Apache 2.0?
Both are permissive licenses with minimal obligations, but Apache 2.0 includes explicit patent grant language that MIT lacks, which matters more for projects where patent litigation risk is a real concern.
Why would I choose a copyleft license like GPLv3 over a permissive one?
Copyleft licenses require derivative works to also remain open source, which protects against your code being incorporated into a closed-source product without contributions flowing back — a deliberate trade-off if keeping the whole ecosystem open matters more to you than maximizing adoption.
Can I change my project’s license later?
Technically yes, but it’s genuinely disruptive for an actively used project, since existing users and contributors are relying on the terms they originally agreed to — getting a reasonable fit upfront is worth the extra few minutes of consideration.
Final thought
The license dropdown isn’t just a formality — MIT, Apache, and GPL represent different philosophies about what should happen to your code after release, and a few minutes matching that choice to your actual goals beats picking whichever option is most familiar.