Is This Allowed? Licensing

So, I know that all public Repl’s are under the MIT license by default. But, I have a different license. So, i wonder, is it permitted to use a different open source license? This is what i plan on using:

yes, its fine to use a different license although I don’t see the purpose


It is fine, but the MIT license still applies.

1 Like

If GPLv3 software is used in a repl, does the MIT license apply to the GPLv3 software?

1 Like

If that’s the case (which I think it is), most projects would be screwed.

1 Like

According to the ToS, public REPL can have a second licence but on replit MIT will always applies. It is done so that replit can save itself from licensing complications.
If you plan to protect your code, please make your REPL private


The ‘Own license’ only applies if it grants more permissions than the MIT license. Public replit terms of service require that all public replits are MIT licenced so you cannot restrict it with own license.

If you dont like that your options are not release code in Public replit and only release it in other places like github that gives more freedom to pick license or host code is some other place.

Keep code private repl then it is not licenced in MIT and you can pick how to license it even commercially if you like.

But in places like this it is important to understand that public code is open source licenced automatically. :cowboy_hat_face:

1 Like

Is it actually even possible to grant more than what the MIT grants? I wonder …

1 Like

You are allowed to waive the requirement of giving credit to the original author of code, which is the only thing required by the MIT license. Additionally, you can also waive the that code is provided “as-is” and is not guaranteed to work and guarantee that your code will work, which means that you take full responsibility for any financial or other damages caused by bugs in your code. In MIT licenced code original creator wont take responsibility of possible damages that could happen if code wont fit or work as intended but you are not forced to require this if you want to be more allowing and open up your self for lawsuits. :sweat_smile:

1 Like

True, but that is like shooting in your own foot from both sides …

1 Like

So, if on GitHub, the repo could have a different license, right?(I think i understand)
Of course, the Repl would still use MIT. Unless(next post, I’m not used to Replit’s forums replying)

Would the Unlicense count as a less restrictive license?
I do plan on getting hacker when i get a debit card, however, as I’m currently limited to gift cards, which i don’t believe Replit accepts.

Yeah, it’s called the public domain. I license most of my projects under the public domain so often, that I made a template. :skull:

No you cant. ALL public repls are under the MIT licensee and CAN NOT be changed.

We have been told before that we can, it’s just that the least restrictive license takes effect, which is typically MIT.

According to who? According to Malcom (head of Trust & Safety) he said it cant be changed on public repls in the past few weeks iirc (this was internally)

I’ll try to find it, hang on.

Edit: here:

1 Like

Hmm I remember something diffrent. I will ask him later

Hey there :wave:

You can add your own license, however the least restrictive license will take priority.