readme-and-co:license-selection

License Selection for Software and Content

Purpose

Guide users through selecting appropriate licenses for code, documentation, and content. Provide decision trees, use case analysis, and multi-licensing strategies with emphasis on practical outcomes.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

• User needs to choose a software license
• Selecting Creative Commons licenses for documentation/media
• Discussing multi-licensing or dual-licensing strategies
• Comparing license options (MIT vs Apache, GPL vs permissive)
• Understanding license compatibility
• Considering FSL-1.1-MIT or time-delayed open source
• Setting up license files in repositories

License Hierarchy and Recommendations

For Code Projects

Tier 1: GitHub-Approved Licenses (Recommended First)

Present these licenses first for code projects:

• MIT: Maximum adoption, simple, permissive
• Apache-2.0: Permissive with patent grant protection
• GPL-3.0: Strong copyleft, derivatives must be open source
• AGPL-3.0: Network copyleft, closes SaaS loophole
• BSD-3-Clause: Permissive with trademark protection

Tier 2: Special Purpose

• FSL-1.1-MIT: Commercial now, MIT in 2 years (Sentry model)
• MPL-2.0: File-level copyleft, good for libraries
• LGPL-2.1: Library-focused copyleft

Tier 3: OSI-Approved (Not on GitHub List)

Recommend only if specific requirements demand them.

For Documentation and Media

Tier 1: Creative Commons (Recommended First)

Present these for non-code content:

• CC-BY-4.0: Attribution only, most permissive
• CC-BY-SA-4.0: Attribution + ShareAlike (copyleft)
• CC0-1.0: Public domain dedication
• CC-BY-NC-4.0: Attribution + NonCommercial (limits commercial use)

Tier 2: Code Licenses

Use only if documentation is code-adjacent (API docs in repo).

License Decision Tree

Quick Selection for Code

Question 1: Do you want maximum adoption?

• YES → MIT License (recommended for most projects)
• NO → Continue

Question 2: Do you need patent protection?

• YES → Apache-2.0 (includes explicit patent grant)
• NO → Continue

Question 3: Do you want copyleft (derivatives must be open source)?

• YES → GPL-3.0 (strong copyleft) or AGPL-3.0 (for network services)
• NO → Continue

Question 4: Is this a commercial SaaS that will become open source?

• YES → FSL-1.1-MIT (2-year delay, then MIT)
• NO → Review detailed comparison

Quick Selection for Documentation

Question 1: Should others give attribution when using your work?

• NO → CC0-1.0 (public domain dedication)
• YES → Continue

Question 2: Should derivative works also be open?

• YES → CC-BY-SA-4.0 (ShareAlike, like GPL for content)
• NO → Continue

Question 3: Should commercial use be allowed?

• YES → CC-BY-4.0 (most permissive with attribution)
• NO → CC-BY-NC-4.0 (non-commercial restriction)

Multi-Licensing Strategies

What is Multi-Licensing?

Offering the same software under multiple license options, allowing users to choose which license terms they prefer.

Common patterns:

1. Permissive + Copyleft: MIT + GPL (user chooses)
2. Open Source + Commercial: GPL + Proprietary (dual licensing)
3. Time-Delayed: FSL → MIT (automatic transition)

When to Use Multi-Licensing

Good candidates:

• Commercial open-source projects needing revenue
• Projects wanting copyleft but not wanting to scare away permissive-only users
• SaaS products transitioning to open source

Business models:

• Open Core: Base under OSS, premium features under commercial
• Dual Licensing: GPL for open source, commercial for proprietary use
• Time-Delayed: FSL today, MIT automatically in 2 years

FSL-1.1-MIT (Functional Source License)

What it is:

• Source-available now, production use restricted
• Automatic MIT license after 2 years from release
• Used by Sentry and other commercial OSS companies

When to recommend:

• Commercial SaaS products
• Projects wanting eventual open source with revenue period
• Companies following "open source with a business model"

Key points:

• Users can read, modify, test the code immediately
• Cannot use in production or competing services for 2 years
• After 2 years, becomes fully MIT licensed automatically

Not OSI-approved but ethical and sustainable

License Characteristics Reference

Permissions Comparison

License	Commercial Use	Modifications	Distribution	Patent Grant	Private Use
MIT	✓	✓	✓	—	✓
Apache-2.0	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
GPL-3.0	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
AGPL-3.0	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
FSL-1.1-MIT	Limited*	✓	✓	—	✓

*FSL: No production/competing use for 2 years, then becomes MIT

Conditions Comparison

License	Disclose Source	License Notice	State Changes	Same License
MIT	—	✓	—	—
Apache-2.0	—	✓	✓	—
GPL-3.0	✓	✓	✓	✓ (copyleft)
AGPL-3.0	✓	✓	✓	✓ (network)
FSL-1.1-MIT	✓	✓	—	—

Practical License Recommendations

By Project Type

Open Source Library:

• First choice: MIT (widest adoption)
• If patent concerns: Apache-2.0
• If want copyleft: LGPL-2.1 (library-specific)

Open Source Application:

• First choice: MIT or GPL-3.0 (user preference)
• If network service: AGPL-3.0 (prevents proprietary SaaS)
• If eventual open source: FSL-1.1-MIT

Documentation/Tutorials:

• First choice: CC-BY-4.0 (attribution required)
• If want ShareAlike: CC-BY-SA-4.0
• If public domain: CC0-1.0

Commercial SaaS:

• First choice: FSL-1.1-MIT (delayed open source)
• Alternative: Dual GPL + Commercial
• Open core: Apache-2.0 for base, commercial for premium

By User Goal

Goal: Maximum adoption and contributions → MIT (most permissive, well-known, widely accepted)

Goal: Prevent proprietary forks → GPL-3.0 (strong copyleft, derivatives must be open source)

Goal: Prevent proprietary SaaS → AGPL-3.0 (network copyleft, closes SaaS loophole)

Goal: Patent protection → Apache-2.0 (explicit patent grant and retaliation clause)

Goal: Business model + open source → FSL-1.1-MIT (revenue window, then open source) or Dual GPL + Commercial

Multi-Licensing Implementation

File Structure for Dual Licensing

repository/
├── LICENSE (primary license, e.g., GPL-3.0)
├── LICENSE.commercial (commercial terms, or link to purchase)
└── README.md (explains licensing options)

README Section Template

## License

This project is dual-licensed:

- **Open Source**: GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPL-3.0)
  - Free for open source projects
  - Derivatives must also be open source

- **Commercial**: Proprietary commercial license
  - For use in proprietary/closed-source projects
  - Contact: sales@example.com

Choose the license that best fits your use case.

FSL Multi-License Pattern

repository/
├── LICENSE.md (FSL-1.1-MIT with both licenses)
└── README.md (explains time-delayed transition)

Additional Resources

Reference Files

For detailed analysis and comparisons:

• references/license-comparison.md - Side-by-side detailed license comparisons
• references/multi-licensing-guide.md - Dual licensing models, business patterns, real-world examples from FOSSA
• references/fsl-explained.md - FSL-1.1-MIT deep dive, use cases, companies using it
• references/creative-commons-guide.md - Complete CC license guide for content creators

License Templates

Complete license templates available in plugin:

• ../../templates/LICENSE/github/ - 21 GitHub-approved licenses (MIT, Apache-2.0, GPL-3.0, etc.)
• ../../templates/LICENSE/creative-commons/ - Creative Commons licenses (CC0, CC-BY-4.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0, etc.)
• ../../templates/LICENSE/fsl/ - FSL-1.1-MIT and variants

Use the populate_license.py script to render templates with project-specific variables (copyright holder, year, etc.)

Quick Reference

For most code projects: MIT (permissive, popular)

Need patent protection: Apache-2.0

Want copyleft: GPL-3.0 (code) or AGPL-3.0 (network services)

For documentation: CC-BY-4.0 (attribution) or CC-BY-SA-4.0 (copyleft)

Commercial SaaS: FSL-1.1-MIT (delayed open source)

Multi-licensing: GPL + Commercial (dual) or FSL → MIT (time-delayed)

Consult reference files for detailed comparisons and multi-licensing strategies.