---
title: Foss and Non-FOSS Licenses that may be worth looking into
draft: false
date: 2025-10-05
---

>[!NOTE] This web version is still kind of a mess but the [PDF version](https://argentumcation.com/licenses.pdf) is a bit more complete

# What's a License
- Copyright law is a bitch
- Posting your stuff online is a bitch
- Basically, licensing is you telling other people what they can and can't do with your stuff
- By default, your stuff is under All Rights Reserved, which means you own it and nobody is allowed to share it or modify it or whatever
	- in practice, that's probably not gonna stop anyone until you get lawyers involved
- Restrictive licenses typically mean that they force people downstream to protect certain freedoms (like being able to distribute your stuff)
- Conversely, permissive licenses give downstream people more control over what they do with your crap (like making their own private version and selling it or some shit)
	- Big companies generally will only let you use stuff that's under permissive licenses
- Royalties are basically a subscription fee to use copyrighted works
# FOSS Licenses
- https://choosealicense.com/ is a good resource
- https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/solution/licensing-assistant/find-and-compare-software-licenses is a more thorough option
- https://spdx.org/licenses/ is gonna be the most thorough source
## FOSS Freedoms
As outlined by Stallman himself, defines what's open source or not
![](Pasted%20image%2020250917211537.png)
0. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever purpose.
	- I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with the program
1. The freedom to study the program's “source code,” and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish. Programs are written by programmers in a programming language—like English combined with algebra—and that form of the program is the “source code.” Anyone who knows programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are forbiddingly hard.
	- Your code is shit, and you are shit, allow me to fix your shit for my own sanity
2. The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish. (It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy. Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them; however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it privately—does not mistreat anyone.)
	- I get to give your program to whoever the fuck I want, but with the same license
3. The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish.
	- Once I have modified your shit, I should be able to give it away if I want
---
- All of the ones in this section require
	- Commercial use: you gotta be able to sell this shit
	- Distribution: woe, my software be upon ye
	- Modification: woe, they made horny fanfic of my software
	- Private Use: idc what you do with my software behind closed doors
----
## GPL: The GNU Pubic License
These come straight from Richard Stallman's sweat glands
- [x] [GPLv2](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC1)
	- Like the original Copyleft license at this point
		- To plagiarize Wikipedia: Copyright forbids changing stuff and giving it to others, Copyleft forbids forbids changing stuff and giving it to others
		- What happened to GPLv1? I don't know and I don't care, I'm gregnant, hungry and procrastinated writing this talk so you don't get journalistic excellence
	- Here's the gist of it
		- No Warranty: If you fuck up, it's not my problem
		- No Liability: I'm not liable for whatever crimes against humanity you do with this
		- Disclose Source: Put your code somewhere where people can see it*
			- there's no definition of what this actually means so like if you distribute the source code over telegraph that's probably allowed
		- License notice: When you distribute this program, you gotta keep a copy of this license handy
		- Same license: If you modify this program, you gotta keep this license
		- State changes: If you modify this program and distribute it, you gotta say what you changed
	- If GPLv2 is so good, why is there no GPLv3
---
- [x] [GPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#license-text)
	- I'm glad you fucking asked
	- Back in ye olde days of like 2007 (jesus christ were some of you even born back then?) there was this company named TiVo, that shipped boxes with DRM to prevent users from running modified software
	- In an absolutely based move, GNU was like fuck this and made GPLv3
	- The tl;dr of the patch notes are
		- Users have to be able to run modified versions of GPLv3 software on hardware
		- Bans DRM
		- If you put patented code into a GPLv3 codebase, you automatically allow contributors to use your patent
		- Makes it easier to interop wth other licenses
			- ![](Pasted%20image%2020250918100952.png)
			- ie you can combine GPLv2+ and GPLv3, but not GPLv2
------
- [x] [AGPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)
	- The A stands for Affero, which was the name of the company that made this license
	- Basically the exact same as GPLv3 except if the software runs over a network, that counts as distributing
	- as such, you need to offer up the source code
	- notable examples include grafana and mastodon
	- this is probably the most restrictive open source license
----
- [x] [LGPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html)
	- The L does not in fact stand for taking the L, it stands for Lesser
	- Basically if you have a proprietary program you can still link against an LGPL library (ie `*.so` or `*.dll`)
	- if you modify an LGPL library, you still need to release the source code

## BSD
- These are relatively permissive licenses, originally used for BSD itself
- Unlike with GPL, the number after BSD indicates the number of clauses, as opposed to the version number
- [x] [BSD-4](https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-4-Clause.html)
	- This is the original license, but not super common, choosealicense.com has two dead projects and some random java library as examples
	- the actual license is pretty short but here's the summary
	- Redistributions must include the copyright notice
	- You can't use the names of contributors/copyright holders to promote derivatives
	- All advertisements that mention the software or features must say "This product includes software developed by \[project]"
		- people had an issue with this clause, which led to the creation of
- [x] [BSD-3](https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause)
	- This is the default BSD license
	- It's the same one as BSD-4 removes the pesky requirement to cite the people you stole code from in your ads
- [x] [BSD-2 (Simplified)](https://opensource.org/license/bsd-2-clause)
	- Apparently not being able to slap Hexley's face on derivative software is a deal breaker for some people
		- I've been informed that Hexley is the Darwin mascot, not the BSD one
		- Foreshadowing is a literary technique in which
	- This led to the creation of BSD-2, which only requires you to include the copyright notice when redistribute the code/program and that's literally it
	- This is nearly the exact same thing as the ISC license if you see that anywhere
- [x] [BSD-2-Clause-Patent]()
	- Same as above except gives you the patent grant, which means contributors and users get to use any patents involved in making this
- [x] [BSD-1]()
	- So apparently this exists? same as BSD-2 except you only need include the license with source code
- [x] [BSD-0](https://opensource.org/license/0bsd)
	- Okay so apparently INCLUDING THE FUCKING LICENSE was too much for some fuckers, so BSD-0 was created

## CC
- Creative Commons licenses are a group of licenses that are intended sit between All Rights Reserved and Public Domain, these ones are considered open source, the non open sources
- While most of the other licenses in this talk are primarily focused on software, CC licenses are used for basically everything, 
	- This talk itself is CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0, and the images I stole from wikipedia are probbaly under some other CC license
	- The Stallman pic at the beginning of this talk is CC-BY-SA 4.0, if you can find a way to make money off that shit, be my guest
- [x] [CC-BY-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
	- Do whatever the fuck you want, just credit me
- [x] [CC-BY-SA 4.0]
	- Same as above but you gotta use the same license on derivatives
	- This is the most common CC license
- [x] [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
	- Do whatever the fuck you want, period
	- it's public domain
	- this license only exists because some places don't have a concept of you putting your work into the public domain
## The Permissive Twins
- [x] [Apache](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
	- If there's a NOTICE file in the original work, you gotta keep it in the derivatives
		- this don't need to contain any legal stuff, you can put whatever the fuck you want in there, like the bee movie script
	- any unmodified parts of the codebase need to remain under the Apache license
		- if you modify it, anything goes
	- any contributions to an apache licensed codebase are under the same license unless otherwise stated
	- also does the whole patent grant thing, so you can use any patents that are already in the codebase
	- oh yeah, you also need to state any changes you make
	- you can combine this stuff with GPLv3 as long as the result is GPLv3
	- It's not compatible with GPLv2 unless you add:
	- [LLVM exception](https://spdx.org/licenses/LLVM-exception.html)
		- this basically just lets you link against anything with this exception included
	- If you're gonna use a permissive license, FSF would rather it be this one
- [x] [MIT](https://opensource.org/license/mit)
	- The other big permissive license
	- The most popular license on GitHub
	- Basically if you redistribute the software or any big chunks of it, include the license
	- past that just do whatever dude
	- there's also the MIT-0 variant which doesn't even require including the license
	- does not include a patent grant, unlike Apache, so I guess you can get sued for using patented stuff in/from an MIT license codebase
## Other
- [x] [EUPL 1.2](https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/custom-page/attachment/2020-03/EUPL-1.2%20EN.txt)
	- The most popular license on GyattHub
	- Mr. Worldwide, the software license
		- available in 23 languages
	- compatible with GPL/AGPL/MPL/LGPL/APL/JPL/Both IPLs/VPL/BNPL/WTFPL and what have you
	- Similar to AGPL, counts network use as distribution, and requires you to distribute source for it
	- Similar to LGPL, you can link against an EUPL library regardless of what your software license is
	- Another unique thing about this license is that you can't charge royalties for anything under this license
- [x] [MPL](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/)
	- Used for Firefox and Thunderbird, written by CEO of Mozilla herself
		- also used in Cemu, LibreOffice, and Syncthing
	- lets you use MPL code in proprietary products as long as you keep the code separate and MPL stuff stays open source
	- Other than that it's basically your standard copyleft license and is compatible with GPL
- [x] [WTFPL](https://www.wtfpl.net/about/)
	- You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
- [x] [Unlicense]
	- Another license in the "do whatever the fuck you want, it's public domain" category
# Source-Available / Non-FSF Approved Licenses that may be worth looking into

Somewhat distilled from [FSF's List](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html)
- [x] [Aladdin Free Public License (AFPL)]
	- Derived from GPL
	- must include source code
	- may not be sold, including fees related to distributing
- [x] [Anti-996 License](https://github.com/kattgu7/Anti-996-License)
	- So back in the old <ruby>中<rp>(</rp><rt>zhōng</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby> of <ruby>国<rp>(</rp><rt>guó</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby>, there was this thing called the 996 system, in which you work from 9am to 9pm 6 days a week
	- This fucking sucks so they made a license to stop it
	- It's basically the MIT License except you gotta comply with 'Core International Labor Standards', whatever that means
- [x] [Anti-Capitalist Software License](https://anticapitalist.software/)
	- You gotta include a copy of the license text
	- If you're an individual, educational institution, co-operative, or non-profit, you can use this software
	- If the user is an organization with owners, the workers are all owners with equal equity and votes
	- If the user is an organization, they can't work with law enforcement or the military
- [x] Artistic license
	- Not that important except GNU calls it "Too clever for its own good" which I thought was funny
	- I can't even find a link for this
- [x] [BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-Warranty] 
	- My sanity dwindles on this accursed night as I write about a Non-FOSS BSD license
	- This is literally just BSD-3 but you can't use it in nuclear facilities
	- It's like BSD-3 except when you violate this license, George W Bush himself will appear behind you and rectally administer Stuxnet with no regard for the Geneva Suggestions
- [x] [Business Source License (BUSL/BSL)](https://mariadb.com/bsl/)`
	- From the makers of MariaDB
	- Can't make money off of this stuff without permission
	- If you want to make money off of the work, get a commercial license
	- 4 years after publication, or whenever the author says, the work converts to a GPLv2 compatible license
- [x] [Code Project Open License (CPOL)](http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx)
	- Can use source or binaries in your own work
	- can do bugfixes
	- remixes keep this license, and state changes
	- can't publish your derivative without permission from author
	- can't distribute without permission, author keeps copyright of the work
	- you can't take credit for the work
	- can't use the author's name to adveritse
	- can't sell the work
		- you can distribute in aggregate for money
	- can't use the work for "illegal, immoral or improper purposes"
- [x] [Commons Clause](https://commonsclause.com/)
	- Its not actually a license on it's own
	- just add it onto your main license
	- basically says there's no way for anyone to make money off of this
- [x] [Functional Source License](https://fsl.software/)
	- Converts to Apache or MIT after 2 years
	- can't use the code to make a competing product
	- can't use the code for commercial purposes
- [x] [The Hippocratic License](https://firstdonoharm.dev/)
	- This one is pretty modular actually
	- no charge, no royalty, can remix/redistribute etc, has patent grant
	- Here's the spicy part:
		- Default requirements:
			- Don't murder people
			- Don't slavery
			- Don't child labors
			- No Cruel and Unusual Punishment
			- No racism/sexism/etc
			- Right to a fair trial?
			- No search and seizure without a warrant or random arrests?
			- No invasions of home or privacy, or communications
			- No eminent domain
			- No Trail of Tearsing people
			- No unionbusting
			- No hurting the environment
			- equal pay for equal work
			- reasonable working hours and periodic paid holidays
			- Verify your supply chain
		- Optional requirements
			- Don't be a fossil fuel company
			- No hurting the environment (again?)
			- No mineral or fossil fuel mining
			- Don't be on the BDS list
			- Don't be the Taliban
			- Don't be the Myanmar government
			- Don't do business in/with the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China?
			- Don't have beef with Customs and Border Protection for Forced Labor
			- Don't do mass surveilance
			- Don't be a military
			- Don't be law enforcement
			- Don't be a media entity that promotes violence
			- Don't unionbusting (again?)
- [x] [Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source License Agreement (HESSLA)](https://cultdeadcow.com/hacktivismo/hessla.html)
	- Even the author has to follow the license rules
		- wtf happens if the author violates the license?
	- source code is always available from author
	- can remix/distribute 
	- can charge money to perform/display/transmit the work
	- can offer warranty for a fee
	- no royalties
	- Don't commit human rights violations with this
	- Don't help other people commit human rights violations
- [x] [The JSON License](https://www.json.org/license.html)
	- basically just the regular boilerplate 
	- The body of this license fits in one line "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."
	- IBM asked for an exemption from that
		- it was granted
- [x] [Peer-Production License](https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License#LICENSE)
	- Intended more for art and theatre than software
	- You use/share/modify the work noncommercially
	- Co-ops can use the work commercially
	- Derivatives must be under a compatible license
	- Keep the license on hand
- [x] [Server Side Public License]("https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license")
	- Clarified version of AGPL used by MongoDB
	- If software is offered as a service, the entire stack source must be available
	- third party forks should be able to interact with the original work 
	- Considered "discriminatory" to people who use proprietary software in their stack, since every part of the stack needs to be open sourced
- [x] [The Hexley License](http://www.hexley.com/license.html)
	- WHY THE FUCK DOES APPLE HAVE A FUCKING LICENSE FOR ITS FURSONA
	- WHY DOES APPLE HAVE A FURSONA
	- WHY THE FUCK dO I HAVE The LICENSE FOR A NON-FOSS FUCKIGN FURSONA IN MY PRESENTATION
	- You need to include the copyright statement somewhere
	- If you want to mass produce merch, you need to request permission from the copyright holders
		- derivatives must be related to original work
		- derivatives should also should not "dilute the quality" of the work
	- IT'S ONE AM AND THEY HIT THE SECOND FUCKING BRAINCELL
	- I AM HAVING A DTROKE APPLE NAS TEO FURSONAE
- [x] [SIL Open Font License](https://openfontlicense.org/documents/OFL.md)
	- I thought this was FOSS until I wrote this section actually
	- This is actually a license for fonts specifically
	- I actually had to look at this yesterday night to see if I could license a shitpost under GPL
		- I still have no idea because I can't fucking find out the copyright for emoji kitchen stuff, but I'm tempted to PR this into GNU netcat
			- nevermind it's on SVN
	- You can't sell the font or modified versions or any part of the font by itself
	- You can bundle the font with whatever you want as long as you attach the license
	- Derivatives have to use a different name unless they get permission
	- Don't use the copyright holders name to promote your derivative without permission (like BSD-4)
	- The entire font and derivatives must be under this license, does not apply to documents using this font
## CC 
- [x] [CC-BY-NC-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
	- Do whatever the fuck you want just credit me
	- Don't sell my shit
	- Don't put more restrictions on my shit
	- If you use my shit to make more shit, you gotta keep my license
	- Second most common non-FOSS CC license
- [x] [CC-BY-ND](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)
	- Share it with whoever the fuck you want, just credit me
	- If you fuck with my shit you can't share it
	- Don't put more restrictions on my shit
	- By far the least common CC license, FOSS or otherwise
- [x] [CC-BY-NC-ND](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
	- Basically the last two combined
	- Don't remix my shit, don't make money off my shit'
	- This is the most common non-FOSS CC license, and the 2nd most common CC license in general
