Verified75% confidenceFactExact time
The MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses permit commercial use and closed-source modifications, the GPL requires derivative works to also be open-sourced, and the AGPL requires open-sourcing even when software is provided as a service over a network.
3
Sources
75%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
9/6/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedIf you want a project to be adopted as widely as possible, choose MIT or Apache 2.0; if you insist that derivatives must always remain open source, choose the GPL family; when in doubt, MIT is the safest default choice.79% similarVerifiedThe MIT License is one of the most permissive software open-source licenses, whereas the GPL license is viral and requires derivative works to be open-sourced under the same terms.79% similarUnverifiedOpen-source models are typically released under Apache 2.0, MIT, or custom licenses that allow commercial use and modification, and operate under a different regulatory framework from hardware export controls.78% similarUnverifiedAGPL, GPL, and SSPL are open-source licenses that warrant close attention, while MIT, Apache 2.0, and the BSD family are generally commercially friendly.78% similarVerifiedThe AGPL license requires that source code be made available even when services are provided over a network, which can effectively prevent open-source washing.77% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/868287API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/868287MCP
get_claim(id=868287)