license-advisor

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:

1. Project type: Library, framework, application, SaaS, developer tool?
2. Business model: Open core, SaaS, support/consulting, donations, fully open?
3. 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

1. Not legal advice: Always recommend consulting a lawyer for commercial decisions
2. Dependency compatibility: Check that chosen license is compatible with dependencies
3. CLA considerations: For contributions, consider if a CLA is needed
4. Relicensing: Changing licenses later requires all contributors' consent (or CLA)