Choosing a License for Examples and Libraries

I searched the forum and I couldn’t find a direct answer for this.
If there’s an older discussion, share that with me please.

Recently I started to learn audio programming(& DSP) in parallel with a local Audio Eng. course.
In the coming months, I’d like to share my experience with Blog posts and some projects on GitHub.

I’d like to use MIT (or similar) license for those examples. In those code, I’ll use some Juce classes and methods.
Since Juce is not opensource, I wonder that’s possible or not?

I can submit my examples without any Juce library code.
(So, In order to use these examples, someone has to download and subscribe to Juce.)

There is a main public repository containing all the JUCE source code and its history maintained by ROLI here: https://github.com/WeAreROLI/JUCE. Then there are hundreds of forks. Finally, the JUCE code is also licensed under the GPLv3.

JUCE is open-source!

1 Like

You may find this page helpful – there’s some coverage of more permissive licenses like MIT and how they are compatible with GPL-licensed code:

(I’m not a lawyer, but I did a lot of research on this topic when making the same decision about releasing code for blog posts, etc. and decided that the MIT license was the best fit for us.)

1 Like

Thanks I didn’t know about this.

Thanks @bgporter.
I’m bit confused now with this:

Once your business hits the Revenue Limit for your JUCE license, you will either have to upgrade your JUCE license or release your Applications under the GNU General Public License v.3, which means, among other things, that your code can be freely copied and distributed.

Anyway, I’ll keep it as MIT for now and move on.