Loading…
Private decision guide
Compare permissive, copyleft, network-copyleft and commercial models using the obligations your product actually needs.
Answer five questions to compare permissive, file-level copyleft, strong copyleft, network copyleft and commercial licensing models.
This table simplifies common distinctions. Always read the complete license text and verify the actual distribution model.
| Model | Closed-source use | Share modifications | Network source offer |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIT | Allowed | No | No |
| Apache-2.0 | Allowed | No | No |
| MPL-2.0 | Allowed in combined works | Covered files | No |
| GPL-3.0 | Generally incompatible | Covered derivatives | No |
| AGPL-3.0 | Generally incompatible | Covered derivatives | Yes |
| Commercial | Per contract | Per contract | Per contract |
FAQ
No. It is an educational decision aid. Ownership, dependencies, distribution, contributor agreements and jurisdiction require case-specific legal review.
Both are permissive, but Apache-2.0 contains an explicit patent grant and additional notice and modification requirements.
MPL-2.0 is often considered when modifications to covered files should remain open while those files may still be combined with proprietary code.
GPL obligations are generally triggered by distribution of covered software. AGPL also requires a source offer for modified covered software used interactively over a network.
Potentially. Dual licensing requires clean ownership or contributor rights and careful dependency compatibility, release and customer-contract management.