Topic 1: Licenses

Topic 1: Licenses

A comparison of GNU General Public License (copyleft) and MIT Licenses for Digital Artist
Tags: License, Open Source collaboration

---

It is a universal understanding that within the realm of open-source, projects are free to use and modify as users see fit (Hanna, 2021). In the present day, it is very simple to both contribute or utilise open-source projects as platforms such as GitHub and CodePen facilitate the activities for open-source collaborations. However, despite the "free to use" nature of open-source projects, you would need to attach a license if you intend to involve a contributor to use, modify or distribute to your project. Legally, a person cannot utilise your open-sour project, even if it is just a part of your project unless you gave them explicit rights to do so through the license of your choice (Github, 2023).

As part of the Coding 6 Unit, I have begun contributing design works in the form of illustrations and website templates on open-source projects in both GitHub and Codepen (VIEW CONTRIBUTION DOCUMENTATION HERE). As I began acclimating to the open-source community and familiarising myself with the types of licenses, I realise that GNU General Public License (Copyleft) and the MIT License (Used for all CodePen projects) are the most frequently used licenses, but especially for open-source projects that involved an aspect of design.

Hence, this blog intends to explore both GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) and the MIT License for Digital Artists and Designers through comparison. Additionally, this blog will also cover the suitability between the two licenses based on the nature of the open-source project.

Comparing: Feasibility of Producing Derivative Works

GNU General Public License:

Any derivate work that utilises open-source projects licensed under GNU GPL will also be licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL (Dugan, 2015). Often, when a project is licensed under GNU GPL, it usually means the owner intends on preserving the "free to use" nature of open-source projects as it also made sure that works that utilised their projects are also free to use.

MIT License:

This is where the MIT License is different from GNU GLP license, as the MIT License does not require derivative works to use the same license as the source open-source project.

Derivative work that using open-source projects with the MIT License has the freedom to use any license they choose, this also includes proprietary licenses (Team, 2022).

Comparing: Collaboration and Sharing

GNU General Public License:

Emphasises open collaboration and sharing principles.

MIT License:

Emphasises permitting unrestricted use, modification, and distribution to promote collaboration and sharing as well.

Essentially...

The GNU GPL license achieves this by requiring the share-alike provision*, ensuring that projects produced from the source code (Souce/original open-source project) are also openly available. Whereas MIT License facilitates collaboration by providing a framework that allows unrestricted use and modification, allowing others to collaborate and build upon the licensed artwork (Team, 2022).

Comparing: For Commercial Usage

GNU General Public License:

If you are including a feature or code from an open-source project in your project, the open-source project owners can impose restrictions on particular commercial usage or incorporation into proprietary** projects.

For example, the owners of open-source projects under the GNU GLP terms can include "patent licensing provisions". This may entail that even if your derivative work obtains a patent, you must allow others to utilise your derivative work. In other words, the "patent license provisions" would prevent you from restricting the "free to use" nature of the GLP GNU (pugh, 2006).

MIT License:

Allows more freedom when it comes to commercialising your project that includes a feature of code from an open-source project. This entails licensed work to be used, modified, and integrated into proprietary* projects without imposing any restrictions on the licensing terms of the derivative work.

For example, an open-source project that I've contributed to called "SimpleBio" choose to license their project with the MIT License. This is because "SimpleBio" has already stated explicitly in the project's documentation that the template is free to use and modify for commercial or personal use. (READ CONTRIBUTION DOCUMENTATION)

As a Digital Artist and/or Designer, which license should you use?

At the end of the day, the choice between the GNU GLP license and the MIT license comes down to what you value and want to prioritise as an artist. If your intention on keeping your open-source project - along with its derivatives - free to use and accessible by anyone, the GNU GLP license would be the ideal choice. Additionally, the GNU GLP license may also be the ideal choice if you want to have slight control over your project's derivative works including proprietary projects.

However, if you are happy with anyone using, distributing or modifying your work freely, MIT Licenses may be a good license option. Essentially, if you will want to grant production of derivative works more flexibility and the ability to modify your project as they see fit, the MIT Licenses would provide them with the opportunity to do so.

Overall, the way I primarily differentiate the two licenses is that GNU Licenses emphasise retaining the "free to use" nature of the open source and provides project owners slight control over the usage of the project, while MIT Licenses offer more flexibility for derivative owners to utilise the open-source project.




Definitions:
* Works or licenses that require copies or adaptations of the work to be released under the same or similar license as the original
** Proprietary: owner or ownership, in this context, it refers to a project you own or owned by someone.

---

References:

Dugan, B. (2015) Derivative works under the GNU general public license, SSRN. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2622355 (Accessed: 02 June 2023). 

Github, G. (2023) The legal side of Open source, Open Source Guides. Available at: https://opensource.guide/legal/#:~:text=If%20you%20don%27t%20apply,that%20“nobody”%20includes%20you. (Accessed: 02 June 2023). 

Hanna, K.T. (2021) What is open source and how does it work?, WhatIs.com. Available at: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/open-source (Accessed: 22 May 2023). 

pugh, A. (2006) Potential defenses of implied patent license under the GPL, Fenwick and West. Available at: https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/potential_defenses.pdf (Accessed: 02 June 2023). 

Team, F.E. (2022) Open source software licenses 101: The MIT License - Fossa, Dependency Heaven. Available at: https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-licenses-101-mit-license/ (Accessed: 02 June 2023).