Below is a table that compares popular open-source licenses.

License	Permissiveness	Copyleft	Patent Grant	Complexity	Attribution	Derivative & Redistribution Licensing	Examples
MIT License	Very high	None	No	Low	Required	Any license, No Requirement	jQuery, .NET Core
GNU GPL	Low	Strong	No	High	Required	GPL Only	Linux kernel, WordPress
GNU LGPL	Moderate	Weak	No	Moderate	Required	LGPL or More Permissive, Required LGPL	GTK
Apache License 2.0	Very high	None	Yes	Moderate	Required with changes	Any license, No Requirement	Apache HTTPD, Kafka
BSD Licenses	Very high	None	No	Low	Varies by clause	Any license, No Requirement	FreeBSD, NetBSD
MPL 2.0	Moderate	File-level	No	Moderate	Required	MPL or More Permissive, Required MPL	Firefox
Creative Commons	Varies	Varies	No	Low to Moderate	Varies by license type	Varies	Artwork, music, blogs
Eclipse Public License	Moderate	Moderate	No	Moderate	Required	Any license, No Requirement	Eclipse IDE

Notes:

• Permissiveness: Describes how free the users are to use, modify, and distribute the code. “Very high” means there are minimal restrictions, while “Low” means there are more restrictions.
• Copyleft: Describes the requirement for derivative works to remain under the same license. “None” means no such requirement, “Strong” means a strict requirement, and “Weak” or “File-level” means only some parts (e.g., modified files) need to be under the same license.
• Patent Grant: Indicates if the license grants patent rights from the contributors to the users.
• Complexity: Indicates the difficulty in understanding, applying, and using the license.
• Attribution: Refers to the requirement of giving credit to the original authors. If the license requires attribution only with changes, it means that users must mention changes they made when redistributing the code.
• Derivative & Redistribution Licensing: Conditions under which modified works or redistributions of original content must operate.

Open source licenses allow developers to share their code with the public while also dictating how that code can be used, modified, and distributed. Different licenses cater to various philosophies and use cases. Here’s a comparison of some popular open source licenses:

1. MIT License (MIT)
   • Advantages:
     • Very permissive: allows reuse in any project, including proprietary ones.
     • Simple and easy to understand.
   • Disadvantages:
     • Doesn’t ensure that derivative works are open sourced.
   • Popularity and Usage: One of the most popular licenses, especially for small projects and libraries. Examples: jQuery, .NET Core.
2. GNU General Public License (GPL)
   • Advantages:
     • Ensures that derivative works remain open source (strong copyleft).
     • Protects the freedoms of end users.
   • Disadvantages:
     • Can be seen as restrictive, especially for commercial software.
     • Version incompatibilities (e.g., GPLv2 vs GPLv3).
   • Popularity and Usage: Used by many significant projects. Examples: Linux kernel (GPLv2), WordPress, and GNU tools.
3. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
   • Advantages:
     • Similar to GPL but more permissive for libraries. Libraries under LGPL can be used in proprietary software.
   • Disadvantages:
     • Still requires derivative works or modifications to the library itself to be open sourced.
   • Popularity and Usage: Suitable for libraries that want to be more friendly to commercial software. Examples: GTK.
4. Apache License 2.0
   • Advantages:
     • Permissive like MIT.
     • Express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.
     • Requires a change log for modifications, ensuring downstream users can track alterations.
   • Disadvantages:
     • Slightly more complicated than MIT.
   • Popularity and Usage: Used by many Apache Software Foundation projects and others. Examples: Apache HTTPD, Apache Kafka.
5. BSD Licenses (e.g., 2-clause, 3-clause)
   • Advantages:
     • Very permissive.
     • Simple and concise.
   • Disadvantages:
     • The “BSD advertising clause” in the original BSD license led to complications (and eventually was removed in the 2-clause and 3-clause versions).
   • Popularity and Usage: The FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD operating systems use variations of the BSD license.
6. Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL 2.0)
   • Advantages:
     • File-level copyleft: Individual files that are modified must remain under MPL, but new files or works that only link to MPL-covered software do not.
   • Disadvantages:
     • More intricate than MIT or BSD licenses.
   • Popularity and Usage: Used by Mozilla projects like Firefox.
7. Creative Commons Licenses
   • Advantages:
     • Flexible suite of licenses catering to various needs, from very permissive to more restrictive.
     • Not just for software, but for any kind of creative work.
   • Disadvantages:
     • Not intended for software, leading to potential ambiguities in that context.
   • Popularity and Usage: Widely used for artwork, music, blogs, and educational materials.
8. Eclipse Public License (EPL)
   • Advantages:
     • Allows derivatives and distributions of modified works under other licenses.
   • Disadvantages:
     • Not as well-known as other licenses.
   • Popularity and Usage: Used by Eclipse IDE and other Eclipse Foundation projects.

Conclusion: Choosing a license depends on the developer’s goals. If they want maximum freedom and adaptability, MIT or BSD are excellent choices. If ensuring that derivative works remain open source is crucial, GPL might be the way to go. For something in between, MPL or LGPL could be ideal. As always, when considering licensing, it might be wise to consult with someone knowledgeable about intellectual property laws.