Open Source License Picker

Both are permissive licenses that let anyone use, modify, and redistribute your code. The key difference: Apache 2.0 explicitly grants patent rights and requires documenting changes to the code. MIT is simpler and shorter. For most projects, MIT is fine. If you want patent protection for users, use Apache 2.0.

GPL is 'copyleft' — any project that uses GPL code must also be GPL (this is called the 'viral' effect). Use GPL when you want to ensure derivatives remain open source. MIT is permissive — anyone can incorporate it into commercial or closed-source products. Most companies avoid GPL dependencies for this reason.

GPL v3 adds protections against 'tivoization' (using GPL software in locked hardware that can't run modified versions), patent retaliation clauses, and compatibility with more licenses. Linux kernel uses GPLv2. If you're unsure, GPLv3 is generally considered more protective of user freedoms.

Yes. MIT allows use in commercial products, closed-source software, SaaS, and any distribution — as long as you include the MIT license text and copyright notice. This is why MIT is the most popular license on GitHub; it maximizes adoption including by companies.

Unlicense and CC0 effectively place work in the public domain — no attribution required, no restrictions. Use them for simple utilities, code snippets, or reference implementations where you want zero friction for users. Note: some jurisdictions don't fully recognize public domain dedication; Unlicense includes a fallback permissive license.

If your project uses a GPL or AGPL library and you distribute the software (or run it as a service for AGPL), you must make the complete corresponding source code available to users. This doesn't apply to private internal use. Purely permissive licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD) never require this.