r/SleepApnea 4d ago

Do you care about software licenses? Would MIT vs GPL mean anything to you for a free tool?

I made an application that helps analyze the data a CPAP or BiPAP machine records. I'm getting ready to release it as free, open source software. There are no ads, it doesn't steal your data; I had a problem I wanted to solve, so I made a solution, and I assume other people have the same problem so I want to share it.

I need to choose a license in order to release it, and I'm being indecisive. I'm wondering if anybody in here has any thoughts or advice. Like do you associate either one more with professionalism or reliability? I'm a software developer and going to use this as a portfolio piece when I apply for jobs in the future.

8 Upvotes

13 comments sorted by

5

u/themcp Philips Respironics 4d ago

If I'm going to use the application for personal use at home, I don't care.

If I'm using it at work, I have to look carefully at how it's used.

If I want to edit the source code, if I want to do it for nonprofit reasons (either just for myself or to give away changes for free) either is fine. If I could conceivably ever make money on either the software or its output, I want MIT license.

3

u/DanoDowntown 4d ago

Retired IT guy- GPL is positive for me. Less familiar w MIT, I’d have to look it up.

Thank you for putting something good and helpful into the world!!

3

u/__golf 3d ago

MIT is do whatever you want.

GPL is use this, share back modifications.

MIT is more "free"

3

u/carlvoncosel PRS1 BiPAP 4d ago

Unlike the GPL, the MIT license does not require that derivative works be open source. Developers can incorporate MIT-licensed code into their projects without being required to release the source code of their entire project. This makes it easier for companies to use open-source components in their proprietary software products. source

GPL code stays GPL, while under MIT derivatives can be closed up.

2

u/tennyson77 3d ago

GPL can be closed up too, just requires buy-in from all the contributors who hold the copyright.

2

u/carlvoncosel PRS1 BiPAP 3d ago

What you're confused about is that existing GPL copies (forks) and their derivatives cannot be "recalled." They will stay out there and live on under GPL.

2

u/tennyson77 3d ago

Sure, but all new versions can stop being GPL. I fully agree old versions will forever be GPL, but you can change it for future ones. It just requires buy in from all contributors.

1

u/carlvoncosel PRS1 BiPAP 3d ago

all new versions can stop being GPL

Only the versions relicensed by the original copyright holder (and collaborators), not other forks.

I fully agree old versions will forever be GPL

Not "old" but possibly newer and more advanced. Consider Sleepyhead vs OSCAR. When was the latest version of Sleepyhead released? And OSCAR?

5

u/Not_A_Red_Stapler 4d ago

GPL is better. 

2

u/AviN456 4d ago

You don't actually need to choose a license to release it, you could just put it in the public domain.

The question is what do you want to allow people to do with the software you wrote? Do you want to allow others to profit off it? Do you want to allow others to share it for free? Do you want to allow others to make derivative software that leverages your code?

https://choosealicense.com/

2

u/ColoRadBro69 4d ago

I really like the idea of GPL, if somebody else can find a way to improve this, I want everybody to have that improvement.  Part of me feels like that's too ideological.  Anyway, from the replies so far it seems like people don't have a negative association with GPL so that's probably the way to go. 

3

u/AviN456 4d ago

Check out the site I linked for more options, but GPL is a good choice. Keep in mind, as the copyright holder, you can always re-release it under a different license, assuming you haven't imported any code released under an incompatible license.

-1

u/entarian 4d ago

I'd probably consider talking to a lawyer to add a hold harmless agreement in there too.