Loading page
About this tool
Answer a few questions to pick between MIT, Apache-2.0, MPL-2.0, LGPL, GPL, AGPL and public-domain licenses.
This tool recommends an open source license — MIT, ISC, BSD-3-Clause, Apache-2.0, MPL-2.0, LGPL-3.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, the Unlicense or CC0 — from four questions about copyleft scope, patent protection, simplicity and public-domain intent. The logic encodes each license's actual terms: MPL-2.0's file-level copyleft (§3.3), LGPL-3.0's linking exception (§4), AGPL-3.0's network clause (§13) and Apache-2.0's express patent grant (§3).
Open Open Source License Chooser on AltFTool — it loads instantly in your browser.
Add your input to the workspace.
Adjust the options until the result looks right.
Copy or download the output and put it to work.
Every recommendation cites the specific clause that drives it — copyleft scope, patent grant, network trigger.
Covers permissive, file-level, library, strong and network copyleft, plus public-domain dedications.
Warnings flag real conflicts, like wanting a patent grant from CC0, which expressly reserves patent rights.
Both are permissive, but Apache-2.0 adds an express patent license from every contributor (section 3) that terminates if the user sues over the project, plus a requirement to state significant changes. MIT is about 170 words with a single obligation — keep the notice — but grants no explicit patent rights.
Use AGPL-3.0 when your software is likely to be run as a hosted service: its section 13 requires anyone who lets users interact with a modified version over a network to offer them the source. Plain GPL-3.0 obligations trigger only on distribution, so a SaaS operator can modify GPL code privately without sharing.
MPL-2.0 keeps copyleft at the boundary of individual files: any file you modify that carries the MPL header must be made available under MPL (section 3.3), but you may combine those files with proprietary code in a larger work. It is the common middle ground between MIT-style permissive and LGPL.
You can dedicate it with the Unlicense or CC0-1.0, which impose no conditions at all — not even attribution. Two caveats: some jurisdictions do not recognise public-domain dedication (both licenses include fallback grants for that), and CC0 section 4(a) expressly does not waive the author's patent rights, so projects needing patent safety usually prefer Apache-2.0.