How This License Generator Works
Pick a license, add the copyright holder's name and the year, and this license generator online returns the complete, official license text with those details filled in. As a license file generator, it handles the exact placeholder syntax each license actually uses, MIT's single copyright line reads differently from GPL-3.0's notice block, instead of stretching one generic template across every option. Whether you're searching for an open source license generator or just need to create a LICENSE file quickly for a new repository, generating the file takes seconds: copy or download it straight into your project.
Permissive vs Copyleft: How to Choose a License
The single biggest decision a choose a license generator like this one exists to shortcut is permissive versus copyleft. A permissive license (MIT, Apache-2.0, the BSD variants, ISC) lets anyone use, modify, and redistribute your code, including in closed-source commercial products, with almost no strings attached beyond keeping the copyright notice. A copyleft license (GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, and to a lesser extent LGPL-3.0 and MPL-2.0) requires that derivative works distributed to others stay open source under a compatible license, protecting the code's openness at the cost of some commercial flexibility. Want maximum adoption with no restrictions on downstream use? Pick permissive. Want to guarantee your code, and improvements to it, stays open? Pick copyleft.
Comparing the 11 Supported Licenses
This tool doubles as an mit license generator, gpl license generator, and bsd license generator in one, each covering a different point on the permissive-to-copyleft spectrum, summarized below.
| License | Type | Commercial use | Patent grant | Copyleft |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIT | Permissive | Yes | No | No |
| Apache-2.0 | Permissive | Yes | Yes | No |
| GPL-3.0 | Copyleft | Yes | Yes | Strong |
| LGPL-3.0 | Weak copyleft | Yes | Yes | Library-level |
| AGPL-3.0 | Copyleft | Yes | Yes | Strong + network use |
| BSD 2-Clause | Permissive | Yes | No | No |
| BSD 3-Clause | Permissive | Yes | No | No |
| ISC | Permissive | Yes | No | No |
| MPL-2.0 | Weak copyleft | Yes | Yes | File-level |
| Unlicense | Public domain | Yes | No | No |
| CC0-1.0 | Public domain | Yes | No | No |
MIT vs Apache 2.0 vs GPL-3.0: The Most Common Choice
These three cover the vast majority of real-world projects. MIT is the shortest and most permissive: a few sentences of substance, no patent language, works everywhere. As an apache license generator, this tool fills the same year and copyright-holder placeholders into Apache 2.0's text, but Apache 2.0 adds an explicit patent grant that MIT lacks, protecting users from patent claims by contributors, which is why many corporate-backed projects prefer it. GPL-3.0 is the strongest common copyleft license: anyone who distributes a modified version must release their source code under GPL-3.0 too, a poor fit for commercial products built on top of your code, but a strong fit for projects that want to stay permanently open.
Common Uses
Adding the missing LICENSE file to a repository that's never had one, standardizing on one license across every project a team maintains, and quickly comparing what GPL-3.0 actually requires versus MIT before committing to one are the most common reasons to reach for this license generator free tool. It's also useful when forking a project under a different but compatible license, or when open-sourcing a private project for the first time.