Many developers release software into the world as open source projects. By doing so, not only do they provide a service to the community but also allow the community to do them the service of further developing the code. This is usually beneficial for all parties involved but can sometimes lead to challenges when developers have conflicting goals. Releasing code under an OSS license can help to mitigate these challenges.
By adopting an OSS license, developers must agree to abide by a set of redistribution policies before contributing to the project. It also allows the original creator to get some credit for his/her work and helps to prevent others from claiming the work as their own.
Of the many available open source licenses available, I considered two: the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the MIT license.
The GNU GPL is one of the most popular licenses in use. Software released under this license is free to be copied, modified, and distributed in any way. The only restriction is that once software is released under this license, it (and any derivative work) will always exists under this license.
The MIT License is another popular license. It is short, simple, and permissive. It basically allows anyone to do anything to the licensed material as long as they attribute credit to the original author and agree not to hold him/her liable for damages or any other liability.
I think people work best when they are unrestricted. I also think that rules that govern people’s actions should be simple. For these reason, the open source code I produce will be released under the MIT license.
Rob Namahoe 