CruxDevCruxDev Tools Studio Prompts
dev Utility • Zero-Server Privacy • 100% Client-Side

Open Source License Generator

Create a LICENSE file for MIT, Apache 2.0, GPL-3.0, BSD, MPL-2.0, ISC, Unlicense and more with your name and year filled in, plus a plain summary of what each license allows.

Overview

Creates a LICENSE file for an open source project with your name and year filled in. It covers MIT, Apache 2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, BSD 2-Clause and 3-Clause, ISC, Boost, the Unlicense and CC0, and shows what each license permits and requires next to a comparison table. Summaries are for orientation and are not legal advice.

How It Works

Choose a license, enter the copyright holder and the year or a year range, and, for licenses issued as a notice, a project name and short description. The text updates live and can be copied or downloaded as a file named LICENSE. A panel lists permissions, conditions and limitations, and a button copies the SPDX-License-Identifier line for your source file headers.

Step-by-Step Usage Guide

  1. Pick a license from the list or click its SPDX id in the comparison table.
  2. Enter the copyright holder and the year.
  3. Read the permissions, conditions and limitations summary.
  4. Download LICENSE into the repository root and add the SPDX header to source files if you use them.
  5. For notice-form licenses, also save the full text from the linked page.

Technical Specifications & Standards

Permissive licenses such as MIT, BSD, ISC, Boost and Apache 2.0 are produced as their complete canonical text with the copyright line filled in; for Apache 2.0 the year and name go into the appendix notice. The GPL family, MPL-2.0 and CC0 are long legal documents whose authors ask you to apply them through a standard notice, so the tool generates that official notice, clearly labelled NOTICE FORM, with a link to the full text you should also place in the repository. The comparison table separates the practical differences: Apache 2.0, the GPL family and MPL-2.0 include an express patent grant, GPL-3.0 requires sharing source of distributed derivatives, AGPL-3.0 extends that to software offered over a network, LGPL-3.0 applies copyleft at the library level and MPL-2.0 at the file level. Empty fields are left as visible placeholders like [fullname] so an incomplete file is easy to spot. SPDX identifiers use the current forms, such as GPL-3.0-or-later.

Targeted Use Cases

  • Adding an MIT LICENSE to a new npm package before publishing.
  • Choosing between Apache 2.0 and MIT for a library that companies will use.
  • Applying the GPL-3.0 notice to an application and linking the full license text.
  • Releasing sample code or datasets into the public domain with CC0 or the Unlicense.

Notes & Gotchas

  • Use the same SPDX identifier in LICENSE, package.json or Cargo.toml and file headers.
  • Put the legal name of the copyright holder, which may be your employer.
  • Ask a lawyer when licensing decisions affect a business, because this summary is not legal advice.
  • Keep the full text alongside any notice-form license so recipients receive the terms.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between MIT and Apache 2.0?

Both are permissive. Apache 2.0 adds an express patent license from contributors, a patent retaliation clause and a requirement to mark modified files, while MIT is shorter and says nothing about patents.

Why does the GPL option produce a notice instead of the full text?

The GPL family and MPL-2.0 are long, and their authors ask projects to apply them with a standard notice plus the full text in a separate file. The notice is generated with your details and links the official text to copy.

What does the SPDX header do?

A comment such as SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT at the top of each source file states the license in a machine-readable way, which license scanners and package registries recognize.

Which license lets others do anything without attribution?

The Unlicense and CC0 carry no conditions, not even keeping a notice. CC0 explicitly withholds patent rights, which is why it is more common for data and documentation than for code.

Is this legal advice?

No. The summaries describe the licenses in plain terms for orientation. For decisions with business or legal consequences, consult a qualified lawyer.

Related tools

  • .gitignore Generator - Build a .gitignore by picking languages, frameworks, editors and operating systems - Node, Python, Java, Go, Rust, Unity, VS Code, JetBrains, macOS and more - merged without duplicates.
  • README Generator - Scaffold professional README.md files with badges, sections, and table of contents from a form.
  • Changelog Generator - Generate Keep a Changelog entries from commit messages. Supports semantic versioning format.
  • Open Graph Preview - Preview how your URL will appear when shared on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Slack. Edit OG tags live.
  • Meta Tag & Open Graph Generator - Generate HTML meta tags, Open Graph, Twitter Card, and JSON-LD structured data with live preview of social sharing cards.
  • .env File Diff & Comparison - Compare two .env files key by key: see added, removed and changed variables with secret values masked by default, then download a plain-text report.