MIT

IMO it is the less restrictive license. It gives the rights to anyone to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the software. It just requires that the given license is included in all the copies of the code.

In addition, it clarifies the code does not provide warranty of any kind, and denotes that the authors are not responsible for any problem the code may cause.

GPL 3.0

This license is more extensive and descriptive. It gives the rights to anyone to use, copy and modify the software. However, it does not allow sublicensing. i.e. the main difference would be that you can modify the code without including said license if you don‘t distribute it. It also clearly explains that there is no warranty for the software.

Apache 2.0

Has a pretty similar philosophy to the MIT. It gives the rights to anyone to reproduce, copy, modify, publish, distribute, sublicense, and distribute and/or sell copies of the software. It states the code does not provide warranty of any kind too

Some differences with the MIT license are that:

• it requires any modified file to carry a note stating those changes.
• it does not grant permission to use the trademarks or product names of the Licensor.
• it provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.

References

• https://opensource.org/licenses
• https://choosealicense.com/

轉自：https://github.com/zeppelinos/labs/issues/77

各種開源協議區別