I’m rebuilding an app that I made few years ago to make it open-source and free from big company dependencies (for example replacing Firebase with Appwrite)… Now, since it’s already live on Codeberg, I think it would be good to give it a license but I’m super new to FOSS licenses and so I don’t know how to move… Which one would you suggest me?

      • Joe BidetA
        2•2 years ago

        this website seems very biased to me as it is written by a Microsoft company.

        • it uses overly complex legal mumbo jumbo to describe the copyleft licenses, while describing the non-copyleft ones in friendly terms “A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring…” making them more appealing somehow.
        • it mentions a permission to PATENT things, with all licenses. when software patents must be banned, and in practices only exist in some weird loophole in the EU. While FSF site reads as "GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program’s contributors and redistributors. " (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html )
        • it propagates the meme that allowing ppl to make proprietary crap out of your software is “permissive”. like if having the right to own slaves would give you… more freedom…?
        • vpzom
          0•2 years ago
          • This page has existed long before GitHub was owned by Microsoft, so that’s not really a meaningful claim
          • My reading of the patent stuff is that the licenses that mention them disallow the authors from patenting the software, but I agree that that’s not super clear from the page itself
          • Permissive is the established term for such a license, I don’t know what else you’d call it that isn’t offensive