Choosing an Open-Source License

Last updated on 2026-05-29 | Edit this page

Estimated time: 30 minutes

Overview

Questions

Why do you need a license for your code?
How can an open-source license increase reuse and citation?
What licenses does the UC system recommend?

Objectives

Explain why unlicensed software is legally restricted
Describe the main categories of open-source licenses
Choose an appropriate license for a UC research project
Add a license file to a GitHub repository
Identify UC resources for licensing decisions

Callout

Episode Branch: `01-start` → `02-license`

This episode adds a LICENSE file to the repository.

Starting point:

BASH

git checkout 01-start    # Start from the beginning

After this episode:

BASH

git checkout 02-license  # See the result with LICENSE added

Catch-up point: If joining now, run git checkout 01-start

Why licensing matters

When researchers publish code without a license, most people assume it is “public.” Legally, it is not. Copyright law applies automatically. Without a license, others cannot legally reuse, modify, or redistribute the code.

Clear licensing tells others what they can and cannot do with your code, which is the minimum needed for open, reproducible research. The UC OSPO License Guide covers UC institutional requirements.

Callout

Institutional Context: Who Owns Your Software?

At most universities, software created using institutional resources is owned by the institution, not the individual researcher. Before releasing code under an open-source license, check with your Technology Transfer or Intellectual Property office. They will verify ownership, funding requirements, and any third-party restrictions.

If you are at a UC campus: software is typically owned by The Regents of the University of California. Your campus Tech Transfer office can help you select from the UC-approved license list. (UC-specific)

At other institutions: check with your research computing, library, or legal office. Most will have a similar process and a list of preferred licenses.

Understanding license categories

Open-source licenses fall into two broad groups.

Permissive licenses

Examples: BSD, MIT, Apache 2.0

These allow broad reuse with minimal restrictions. Anyone can copy, modify, or redistribute the code. They are common in research because they’re simple and maximize flexibility.

BSD licenses are a common first choice at many research institutions because they:

originated at UC Berkeley
are simple to understand
protect both the institution and authors
integrate well with most other licenses
have minimal restrictions

Copyleft licenses

Example: GPL 2.0

These require that derivative works also remain open-source. This protects openness across the lifecycle of a project.

Callout

Note on GPL 3.0

The UC system does not recommend GPL 3.0 for university-owned software due to patent provisions that may conflict with UC policies. If you need copyleft protection, consult your campus Tech Transfer office about GPL 2.0 or alternatives.

How to choose a license

Five “low-risk” licenses are suitable for most research projects. Here’s a decision guide:

graph TD
    Start[Starting a new UC research software project?] --> Check{Do you have<br/>special requirements?}

    Check -->|No special needs| BSD[Use BSD 3-Clause<br/>✓ Common research default<br/>✓ Simple and protective<br/>✓ Widely compatible]

    Check -->|Need simpler text| MIT[Use MIT License<br/>✓ Nearly identical to BSD<br/>✓ Shorter, easier to read<br/>✓ Very popular]

    Check -->|Industry partnership<br/>or patent concerns| Apache[Use Apache 2.0<br/>✓ Explicit patent protection<br/>✓ Detailed contribution terms<br/>✓ Industry-friendly]

    Check -->|Educational focus| ECL[Consider ECL 2.0<br/>✓ Education-specific variant<br/>✓ Based on Apache 2.0]

    BSD --> TTO[Verify with campus<br/>Tech Transfer Office]
    MIT --> TTO
    Apache --> TTO
    ECL --> TTO

    Check -->|Need copyleft| Copyleft{GPL version?}
    Copyleft -->|GPL 2.0| GPL2[May be acceptable<br/>Consult Tech Transfer]
    Copyleft -->|GPL 3.0| GPL3[❌ Not recommended by UC<br/>Patent conflicts]

    GPL2 --> TTO
    GPL3 --> TTO

    style BSD fill:#90EE90
    style MIT fill:#90EE90
    style Apache fill:#90EE90
    style ECL fill:#90EE90
    style GPL2 fill:#FFFF99
    style GPL3 fill:#FFB6C6
    style TTO fill:#87CEEB

Quick reference

Your need	Recommended license	SPDX identifier	Why
Default / most projects	BSD 3-Clause	`BSD-3-Clause`	Common default at research institutions
Simplest possible	MIT	`MIT`	Minimal text, very popular
Industry collaboration	Apache 2.0	`Apache-2.0`	Explicit patent terms
Educational focus	ECL 2.0	`ECL-2.0`	Education-specific variant

The SPDX identifier is the short, machine-readable code used by GitHub, Zenodo, and your CITATION.cff file to communicate your license automatically. When GitHub shows a license badge in the sidebar, it’s reading the SPDX identifier.

Always consult your institution’s Tech Transfer or IP office before releasing software created with institutional resources.

Callout

What about data and documentation?

Software licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache) are written for executable code. If your repository also contains datasets, figures, or documentation, those files need a separate license.

The standard choice for research outputs is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0), which allows broad reuse with attribution.

A common pattern:

/src or your code files → BSD-3-Clause or MIT
/data or /docs → CC-BY-4.0

You can note this split in your README and in CITATION.cff under the license field, which accepts a list:

YAML

license:
  - BSD-3-Clause
  - CC-BY-4.0

Most research repositories don’t need this, but if you’re sharing a dataset alongside code, it’s worth thinking through.

Callout

Resources

ChooseALicense.com – Compare features across all common licenses.
SPDX License List – Authoritative registry of license identifiers used in CITATION.cff and package metadata.
UC OSPO License Guide (UC-specific) – UC institutional requirements and templates.
UC OSS Chart and Companion Guide (UC-specific) – UC-approved “low-risk” license list.

Challenge

Challenge: Add a BSD License to Your Repository

We will add the BSD 3-Clause license to your demo repository:

Navigate to your repository on GitHub.
Click Add file → Create new file.
Name it LICENSE (or LICENSE.txt).
Click Choose a license template and select BSD 3-Clause License.
Update the copyright holder to reflect who owns the software. At UC campuses this is The Regents of the University of California; at other institutions check with your Tech Transfer office. (If this is a personal project, use your own name.)
Update the year to 2026.
Commit the file to your main branch.

Verify: Does your repository now display the “BSD-3-Clause” license badge in the sidebar?

Show me the solution

GitHub automatically detects the LICENSE file and displays it in the sidebar. Your file should look like this:

BSD 3-Clause License

Copyright (c) 2026, The Regents of the University of California
All rights reserved.

If the badge doesn’t appear, ensure the file is in the root directory and named exactly LICENSE or LICENSE.txt.

Communicating your license

After adding a LICENSE file, reference it in your README so users immediately understand usage terms.

Add this section near the top of your README:

MARKDOWN

## License

This project is licensed under the BSD 3-Clause License - see the [LICENSE](LICENSE) file for details.

Why this matters: Users reading your README on platforms other than GitHub (Zenodo, email, exported PDFs) will see your license terms even without GitHub’s automatic detection.

Challenge

Exercise: License Scenarios

Which license would you recommend for each UC research scenario?

Scenario 1: A Python package for ecological data analysis. You want maximum adoption across academia and industry.

Scenario 2: A data visualization tool developed with a biotech partner who may commercialize derivatives.

Scenario 3: A simple utility script you’re sharing with collaborators.

Show me the solution

Scenario 1: BSD 3-Clause (UC’s default recommendation, maximum flexibility and adoption)

Scenario 2: Apache 2.0 (explicit patent protection important for industry partnerships)

Scenario 3: Either BSD 3-Clause or MIT (both work well for simple sharing; BSD preferred by UC)

In all cases, verify with your campus Tech Transfer office before releasing.

Summary

Licensing is foundational to making research software usable, citable, and shareable. In this episode, you added a BSD license to a repository following UC recommendations.

Key Points

Without a license, software is legally restricted and not reusable
BSD 3-Clause is a common default at research institutions; MIT and Apache 2.0 are strong alternatives
Permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache 2.0) maximize flexibility and adoption
Always consult your institution’s Tech Transfer or IP office before releasing institutionally-owned software
GitHub makes adding standard licenses straightforward

Choosing an Open-Source License

Overview

Questions

Objectives

Episode Branch: 01-start → 02-license

BASH

BASH

Why licensing matters

Institutional Context: Who Owns Your Software?

Understanding license categories

Permissive licenses

Copyleft licenses

Note on GPL 3.0

How to choose a license

Quick reference

What about data and documentation?

YAML

Resources

Challenge: Add a BSD License to Your Repository

Show me the solution

Communicating your license

MARKDOWN

Exercise: License Scenarios

Show me the solution

Summary

Episode Branch: `01-start` → `02-license`