recommend-license

name

recommend-license

description

Advise on the optimal license for a project given the user's desired freedoms (commercial use, modification, distribution, patent grant, sublicensing, private use) and constraints (copyleft, attribution, share-alike, source disclosure, no-warranty, network-use clause). Use when the user says "what license should I use?", "recommend a license", or describes constraints without naming a license. Returns a ranked shortlist with reasoning, and offers to populate the chosen one via populate-from-template or generate-license.

Recommend License

Match the user's intent to a license. Always present a ranked shortlist of 2–4 candidates with explicit trade-offs — never a single recommendation without alternatives.

Constraint dimensions to elicit

If the user has not specified, ask compactly (one message, all at once):

• Project type: software / documentation / creative work / data / hardware
• Commercial use: must allow / must restrict
• Modification: must allow / must restrict
• Distribution of modified versions: permissive / share-alike (copyleft) / source-must-be-disclosed
• Patent grant: required / not required
• Network use clause (AGPL-style): required / not required
• Attribution: required / not required
• Warranty / liability: standard disclaimer / custom
• Compatibility with: any specific upstream license the project depends on

Decision matrix (default knowledge)

License	Type	Permissive	Copyleft	Patent grant	Network clause	Notes
MIT	software	yes	no	no (implicit)	no	Maximum permissiveness, minimal text
Apache-2.0	software	yes	no	yes (explicit)	no	Preferred when patent protection matters
BSD-3-Clause	software	yes	no	no	no	Adds non-endorsement clause
MPL-2.0	software	partial	file-level	yes	no	File-level copyleft, friendly to mixed codebases
LGPL-3.0	software	partial	library-level	yes	no	Linkable from proprietary code
GPL-3.0	software	no	strong	yes	no	Distribution triggers source disclosure
AGPL-3.0	software	no	strong	yes	yes	Network use triggers source disclosure
Unlicense / CC0-1.0	any	yes	no	no	no	Public-domain-equivalent dedication
CC-BY-4.0	docs/creative	yes	no	n/a	n/a	Attribution required
CC-BY-SA-4.0	docs/creative	yes	share-alike	n/a	n/a	Wikipedia-style
CC-BY-NC-4.0	docs/creative	partial	no	n/a	n/a	Non-commercial only — incompatible with most OSS

Steps

1. Read the user's stated constraints. Fill missing dimensions by asking once, in a single grouped question.
2. Score each candidate against the constraints. Eliminate any that violate a hard requirement.
3. Present the top 2–4 as a ranked list. For each:
   • One-line verdict
   • "Why it fits" — 2–3 bullets mapped to the user's constraints
   • "Trade-offs" — 1–2 bullets where it diverges from the ideal
4. If list-templates shows the user already has any of the shortlisted templates, mark them with ✓ and offer to populate via populate-from-template.
5. If none of the standard licenses fit (e.g. user wants commercial restriction + source disclosure + custom attribution clause), recommend generate-license to draft a custom one and warn that custom licenses are not OSI-approved and may deter contributors.

Output format

## Recommended licenses for <project>

1. **<License>** — <one-line verdict>
   - Fits because: ...
   - Trade-off: ...

2. **<License>** — ...

Next: run `populate-from-template <license>` to fill in copyright holder and year, or `generate-license` if you need custom terms.

Notes

• Do not give legal advice — frame everything as informational.
• If the user names a specific upstream dependency, surface compatibility concerns (e.g. "Apache-2.0 code can be relicensed into GPL-3.0 projects, but not the reverse").