| name | license-advisor |
| description | Analyze project requirements and recommend suitable open source licenses (MIT, Apache, GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, BSL, SSPL, etc.). Use when the user asks about licensing, choosing a license, open source strategy, or mentions license names like MIT/GPL/Apache. |
License Advisor
Help users select the most appropriate open source license by analyzing their product requirements, business model, and goals.
Analysis Process
Step 1: Gather Project Context
Ask the user about:
- Project type: Library, framework, application, SaaS, developer tool?
- Business model: Open core, SaaS, support/consulting, donations, fully open?
- Key concerns: (rank by priority)
- Monetization and commercial protection
- Preventing cloud providers from competing
- Maximizing adoption and contributions
- Ensuring derivatives stay open
- Patent protection
Step 2: Apply Decision Matrix
| Requirement | Recommended Licenses |
|---|
| Maximum adoption, minimal restrictions | MIT, ISC, Unlicense |
| Adoption + patent protection | Apache 2.0 |
| Derivatives must stay open (weak copyleft) | LGPL, MPL 2.0 |
| All derivatives must be open (strong copyleft) | GPL v3 |
| Network/SaaS derivatives must be open | AGPL v3 |
| Time-delayed open source | BSL 1.1 |
| Prevent cloud competition | SSPL, Elastic License, FSL |
| Dual licensing strategy | GPL + Commercial |
Step 3: Provide Recommendation
Format your recommendation as:
## License Recommendation
**Primary recommendation**: [License Name]
**Alternative options**: [Other suitable licenses]
### Why this license fits your needs
[2-3 bullet points explaining the match]
### Key considerations
- [Important implication 1]
- [Important implication 2]
### Compatibility notes
[Dependencies, ecosystem considerations]
Quick Reference
Permissive Licenses (Business-friendly)
| License | Patent Grant | Attribution | Key Use Case |
|---|
| MIT | No | Yes | Maximum adoption |
| Apache 2.0 | Yes | Yes | Corporate-friendly, patent protection |
| BSD 3-Clause | No | Yes | Similar to MIT |
| ISC | No | Yes | Simplified MIT |
Copyleft Licenses (Community-focused)
| License | Scope | Network Trigger | Key Use Case |
|---|
| GPL v3 | Full | No | Ensure all derivatives open |
| LGPL v3 | Library boundary | No | Open libraries, closed apps OK |
| MPL 2.0 | File-level | No | Per-file copyleft |
| AGPL v3 | Full | Yes | SaaS must share code |
Source-Available Licenses (Commercial protection)
| License | After Delay | Cloud Restriction | Key Use Case |
|---|
| BSL 1.1 | Configurable (typically 4yr) | Production use restricted | Delayed open source |
| SSPL | Never (not OSI) | Must open entire stack | Anti-cloud provider |
| Elastic 2.0 | No | SaaS restriction | Similar to SSPL, less strict |
| FSL | 2 years → Apache/MIT | Production restricted | Functional Source |
Common Scenarios
"I want maximum adoption"
→ MIT or Apache 2.0 (if patent protection needed)
"I'm building a SaaS and competitors might use my code"
→ AGPL v3 (if open source important) or BSL/SSPL (if commercial protection priority)
"I want contributions back but allow commercial use"
→ LGPL v3 (for libraries) or MPL 2.0 (file-level copyleft)
"I want to sell commercial licenses"
→ GPL v3 + Commercial dual license or BSL 1.1
"I hate cloud providers using my work"
→ SSPL, Elastic License 2.0, or FSL
Detailed Reference
For comprehensive license details, compatibility matrices, and legal considerations, see LICENSES.md.
Important Caveats
- Not legal advice: Always recommend consulting a lawyer for commercial decisions
- Dependency compatibility: Check that chosen license is compatible with dependencies
- CLA considerations: For contributions, consider if a CLA is needed
- Relicensing: Changing licenses later requires all contributors' consent (or CLA)
