What license should I pick for a small utility library: MIT or copyleft?

[EthanFP]

I’ve been trying to choose a license for a small utility library I’m releasing, and I’m stuck on whether to use a permissive license like MIT or a copyleft one. My main worry is that if I go with a strong copyleft license, it might discourage adoption in some commercial projects, but I also really value the idea of derivative works staying open.

[LunaTL]

I went with a permissive license for a tiny util library last year. Adoption was noticeably faster; folks on GitHub could drop it into their projects without worrying about it. A few teams asked about compliance, but it was mostly quick confirmations. We saw more forks and small integrations in internal repos, and there was no alarm about the license.

[Edward.R]

I tried the other approach for a similar tool. It did keep downstream projects more open in spirit, but some potential commercial users backed off because they couldn't risk exposing their own changes. We spent a lot of time answering questions about what counts as a derivative and where the line is drawn.

[NathanM]

I wonder if the real blocker isn’t the license at all. The on ramp matters more—the docs, examples, a stable API, clear attribution. We did publish with that easy setup and it didn't ruin things, but I worry a future-proof guarantee would have helped some conversations. Would a dual licensing scheme have made a difference?

[KennethZR]

Short take: license is one lever among many. If breadth of use matters, start with the easiest terms and pair it with good docs and a clear contribution process. If openness for derivatives matters, frame it as a community norm rather than a strict fortress.