MIT License vs Apache 2.0: Which to Pick
MIT license vs Apache 2.0 comes down to one real question: do you need an explicit patent grant and contribution terms, or do you want the shortest possible license text?
Deep dives, practical guides, and incident analyses from engineers who build Safeguard. No fluff, no vendor FUD — just what you need to ship secure software.
MIT license vs Apache 2.0 comes down to one real question: do you need an explicit patent grant and contribution terms, or do you want the shortest possible license text?
Software licenses split into permissive, copyleft, and proprietary categories, each with different obligations. Here's a quick reference for the types of license engineers actually run into.
Open source license types split into permissive and copyleft, and knowing which one a dependency uses can matter as much as knowing whether it has a CVE.
The GNU Affero General Public License closes the SaaS loophole in the GPL — if your service runs modified AGPL code over a network, you owe the source, even without distributing a binary.
A practical walkthrough of the license options GitHub surfaces when you create a repo, and how to pick one that matches what you actually want people to do with your code.
GPLv3 added patent protection and anti-tivoization clauses that GPLv2 never had. Here's what actually changed and why it still matters for dependency compliance.
AGPL-3.0 is the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 — GPLv3 with one added clause that closes the SaaS loophole, requiring source disclosure even when software is only used over a network, never distributed.
The Apache 2 license is a permissive open source license that allows commercial use, modification, and redistribution, with an explicit patent grant most permissive licenses lack.
Weekly insights on software supply chain security, delivered to your inbox.
Your first fix PR is minutes away.
No sales call required, even your agent can complete the purchase over MCP.