What is the difference between MIT License and GPL?
And both licenses do not restrict to distribute the software. It seems to me that the chief difference between the MIT license and GPL is that the MIT doesn’t require modifications be open sourced whereas the GPL does. The GPL doesn’t require you to release your modifications only because you made them.
What is a GPL-compatible license?
GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses. (#GPLCompatibleLicenses) The following licenses qualify as free software licenses, and are compatible with the GNU GPL. GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3 (#GNUGPL) (#GNUGPLv3) This is the latest version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license.
Do you have to license your GPL library?
The GPL FAQ says about including a GPL library: The software modules that link with the library may be under various GPL compatible licenses, but the work as a whole must be licensed under the GPL.
What’s the difference between GPL and LGPL licenses?
The GPL licenses (GPLv3, GPLv2, LGPL, Affero GPL) all contain some kind of share-alike license. They essentially say “if you make a derivative work of this, and distribute it to others under certain circumstances, then you have to provide the source code under this license.”
What’s the difference between MIT and GPL licenses?
Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license based on what you are afraid of. All of these licenses assume you’re afraid of being sued. The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code; you’re making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible.
Is the GPL required to be covered by derivative code?
You are also correct that the GPL requires that the derivative codebase be covered by the GPL in its entirety (eg, s5c GNU GPL v3 ). I struggled with how this might work for a while, until I gave up and asked a barrister with a speciality in intellectual property law.