This skill should be used when selecting software licenses, choosing Creative Commons licenses, discussing multi-licensing strategies, or when user asks "what license should I use", "help me choose a license", "explain FSL", "dual licensing", "MIT vs Apache", or mentions license compatibility and selection.
From readme-and-conpx claudepluginhub aaronbassett/agent-foundry --plugin readme-and-coThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
references/creative-commons-guide.mdreferences/fsl-explained.mdreferences/license-comparison.mdreferences/multi-licensing-guide.mdDesigns and optimizes AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, observation formats, error recovery, and context for higher task completion rates.
Implements structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures: capture errors, diagnose patterns like loops or context overflow, apply contained recoveries, and generate introspection reports.
Compares coding agents like Claude Code and Aider on custom YAML-defined codebase tasks using git worktrees, measuring pass rate, cost, time, and consistency.
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.
Use this skill when:
Tier 1: GitHub-Approved Licenses (Recommended First)
Present these licenses first for code projects:
Tier 2: Special Purpose
Tier 3: OSI-Approved (Not on GitHub List)
Recommend only if specific requirements demand them.
Tier 1: Creative Commons (Recommended First)
Present these for non-code content:
Tier 2: Code Licenses
Use only if documentation is code-adjacent (API docs in repo).
Question 1: Do you want maximum adoption?
Question 2: Do you need patent protection?
Question 3: Do you want copyleft (derivatives must be open source)?
Question 4: Is this a commercial SaaS that will become open source?
Question 1: Should others give attribution when using your work?
Question 2: Should derivative works also be open?
Question 3: Should commercial use be allowed?
Offering the same software under multiple license options, allowing users to choose which license terms they prefer.
Common patterns:
Good candidates:
Business models:
What it is:
When to recommend:
Key points:
Not OSI-approved but ethical and sustainable
| 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
| 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 | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Open Source Library:
Open Source Application:
Documentation/Tutorials:
Commercial SaaS:
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
repository/
├── LICENSE (primary license, e.g., GPL-3.0)
├── LICENSE.commercial (commercial terms, or link to purchase)
└── README.md (explains licensing options)
## 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.
repository/
├── LICENSE.md (FSL-1.1-MIT with both licenses)
└── README.md (explains time-delayed transition)
For detailed analysis and comparisons:
references/license-comparison.md - Side-by-side detailed license comparisonsreferences/multi-licensing-guide.md - Dual licensing models, business patterns, real-world examples from FOSSAreferences/fsl-explained.md - FSL-1.1-MIT deep dive, use cases, companies using itreferences/creative-commons-guide.md - Complete CC license guide for content creatorsComplete 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 variantsUse the populate_license.py script to render templates with project-specific variables (copyright holder, year, etc.)
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.