Developer reference · Software licensing

Understand the license.
Choose with confidence.

Compare popular software licenses and see what they generally allow for commercial use, modification and redistribution — plus the conditions that matter when you ship software.

6 license familiesSide-by-side comparisonOfficial license references

Compare two licenses

Choose any two to see their practical differences.
VS

MIT License vs Apache License 2.0

Both are permissive licenses that allow commercial use, modification and redistribution. Apache 2.0 adds an express patent license and more detailed redistribution requirements.

At-a-glance comparison

A practical summary of common permissions and obligations. Exact terms depend on the license version and the software's accompanying notices.

Permission / obligationMITApache 2.0GPLv3AGPLv3BSD 3-ClauseProprietary
Commercial use✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ AllowedDepends on terms
Modify the source✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ AllowedIf permitted
Redistribute copies✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ Allowed✓ AllowedIf permitted
Keep derivative work closed-source✓ Generally yes✓ Generally yes✕ Not for covered distribution✕ Not for covered distribution✓ Generally yesDepends on terms
Share source when distributing modified covered workNot requiredNot requiredRequired under GPL termsRequired under AGPL termsNot requiredDepends on terms
Network-use source offerNo special ruleNo special ruleNo special rule for SaaS aloneApplies to modified network serviceNo special ruleDepends on terms
Express patent licenseNo express grant✓ Yes✓ Yes✓ YesNo express grantDepends on terms
Key conditionsKeep copyright and license notice.Include license, mark changed files, preserve notices and applicable NOTICE attributions.Provide license and required corresponding source when conveying covered work; preserve notices.GPLv3 obligations plus offer source to users interacting with a modified version over a network.Keep notices and disclaimer; no endorsement using contributor names without permission.Follow contract, EULA and any separate grants or restrictions.

License guides

Short explanations of what each license is designed to do, with links to authoritative text.

MIT License

SPDX · MIT
Permissive

A short, permissive license that gives broad freedom to use, copy, modify and distribute the software, including in commercial and closed-source products.

  • Keep the original copyright and license notice in copies or substantial portions.
  • No requirement to publish your modifications or the source of a larger proprietary product.
  • Includes warranty and liability disclaimers.
Read official MIT text ↗

Apache License 2.0

SPDX · Apache-2.0
Permissive

A business-friendly permissive license with an express contributor patent license and more detailed rules for redistributing modified works.

  • Commercial use, modification and redistribution are allowed.
  • Include a copy of the license, mark modified files and retain relevant notices.
  • Carry forward applicable NOTICE attributions; patent litigation can terminate the patent grant.
Read official Apache 2.0 text ↗

GNU GPLv3

SPDX · GPL-3.0-only / GPL-3.0-or-later
Strong copyleft

Allows commercial use, modification and sale, while keeping the freedoms of covered distributed versions available to recipients.

  • If you convey a covered modified or combined work, GPL conditions apply to the covered work.
  • Provide the required corresponding source under GPL terms when distributing covered object code.
  • Private modifications and internal use do not by themselves trigger public source release.
Read official GNU GPLv3 text ↗

GNU AGPLv3

SPDX · AGPL-3.0-only / AGPL-3.0-or-later
Network copyleft

Based on GPLv3, with an additional requirement addressing modified versions that users interact with over a network.

  • Commercial use, modification and redistribution are allowed under its conditions.
  • When users interact remotely with your modified version, provide them an opportunity to obtain its corresponding source.
  • It is designed to address the network-service scenario that GPLv3 alone generally does not cover.
Read official GNU AGPLv3 text ↗

BSD 3-Clause

SPDX · BSD-3-Clause
Permissive

A permissive license that allows reuse in proprietary and commercial products, subject to notice and non-endorsement conditions.

  • Retain copyright, conditions and disclaimer in source redistributions.
  • Reproduce them in documentation or other materials for binary redistributions.
  • Do not use the copyright holder or contributor names to endorse derived products without permission.
Read official BSD 3-Clause text ↗

Proprietary license

No single SPDX license
Custom terms

Proprietary is a broad category, not one standard license. The publisher or rights holder defines the permissions in its EULA, subscription terms or custom agreement.

  • Commercial use may require a paid plan, seat, subscription or separate commercial grant.
  • Modification, reverse engineering, copying and redistribution may be restricted or separately licensed.
  • Check the exact product, edition, user type, territory and contract version.
Read about license categories ↗
A useful distinction: “Commercial use allowed” does not mean “you can do anything.” Open-source licenses can allow selling software while still requiring notices, source availability or reciprocal licensing when you distribute covered works. GPL and AGPL do not generally require publishing private modifications; AGPL adds a source-offer requirement for users interacting with a modified version over a network. See the GNU license FAQ.
Scope and accuracy: This page compares MIT, Apache 2.0, GPLv3, AGPLv3 and BSD 3-Clause. “GPL” and “BSD” each have multiple versions, and proprietary terms vary by publisher. Exceptions, dual licensing, additional permissions, dependencies, linking and jurisdiction can change the analysis. This is an educational overview, not legal advice. Always read the exact license shipped with the software and consult qualified counsel for business-critical decisions.