Hello everyone.

I’m developing an open-source visual novel engine. And I’m struggling to choose between the two licenses: MIT and BSD 3-Clause. I wasn’t much about licenses until this moment, so I have to ask someone else. Which one should I pick and why, if someone knows?

Thank you in advance.

  • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    A simple comparison between the two via interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu says that they’re almost identical save for one clause around trademarks:

    https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/licence/compare/BSD-3-Clause;MIT

    But I’d be remiss if I didn’t advocate for a license that better protected your project from corporate theft. The AGPL and GPL are excellent licenses that protect your work and that of the community from companies that would copy it, improve it exclusively for themselves and then ship your work exclusively in binary form:

    https://choosealicense.com/licenses/

    • RmDebArc_5@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      49 minutes ago

      Wouldn’t the LGPL make more sense for an engine? Otherwise it would be hard to make a proprietary game (read almost every game) even if you publish any changes you made to the engine.

      • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        Ooh, yes for for this case, the LGPL would be a good middle-ground for OP’s concerns.

    • Ars Fireside@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 minutes ago

      I thought of using GPL, but it would mean someone else would be obliged to open their source code if they base their software on my engine. Though open-source is good and must exist (speaking of Ren’Py, which is not GPL, but still an open-source engine considered a golden standard of VN development), I’d like to give others the right to make their derivative works either open or closed, by their choice.

      As for AGPL, I know nothing, unfortunately.

      • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        AGPL is GPL + network services protection (preventing someone taking your code and spinning up a for-profit selling services without contribution back). If you don’t care about people stealing your code, closing it, and selling services based on it, then there is no need to consider strict copyleft licenses.

      • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        That’s understandable, though one of the other commenters suggested the LGPL which might make for a good fit for your case. Here’s a comparison with the other two if you’re interested.

        The AGPL is just the GPL with extra rules requiring sharing the code even if you expose it exclusively via a service.