Short answer: MIT lets anyone use your code with minimal restrictions, ideal for wide adoption and commercial projects. GPL forces derivative works to be open source, protecting your code from being locked into proprietary products but limiting use by paying customers.
Key takeaways
- MIT allows proprietary use; GPL forces derivatives open source.
- MIT maximizes adoption; GPL ensures code stays free.
- Choose MIT to sell boilerplates to businesses.
- Choose GPL to prevent competitors from closing your work.
- Your license choice directly impacts your revenue model.
- Always include a license file in your boilerplate repo.
What you will find here
Choosing a license for your boilerplate is a business decision, not just a legal one. The license determines who can use your code, how they can use it, and whether you can monetize it. Two licenses dominate the landscape: MIT and GPL. Each serves a different purpose. Pick wrong, and you either scare away customers or let competitors take your work for free. This guide breaks down the practical differences so you can decide which license fits your revenue goals.
What Does Each License Actually Do?
Both MIT and GPL are open source licenses that allow others to use, modify, and distribute your code. The key difference is in the conditions you impose. The MIT license is permissive. It says: do whatever you want with this code, as long as you keep the copyright notice. You can use MIT-licensed code in proprietary software, sell it, or keep your changes secret. The GPL is a copyleft license. It says: you can use and modify this code, but if you distribute it, you must also distribute the source code under the same GPL terms. In short, GPL forces derivative works to be open source.
For a boilerplate—a starter kit you sell or give away—this distinction matters a lot. Your customers are developers building products on top of your foundation. They need to know if their work must remain open source or if they can keep it proprietary.
How License Choice Affects Your Revenue
Your boilerplate’s license directly shapes your customer base and pricing model. Let’s look at two scenarios.
MIT License: The Adoption Play
MIT maximizes adoption. Companies love it because they can use your code without exposing their proprietary work. If you sell a boilerplate under MIT, you can charge for it once, and then the buyer can use it in commercial projects without further restrictions. This works well for selling templates, themes, and starter kits to agencies and SaaS founders. They pay you, then build proprietary products on top. You get a one-time sale or subscription, not a cut of their revenue. Many boilerplate sellers on marketplaces choose MIT for this reason.
GPL License: The Control Play
GPL lets you enforce that improvements to your boilerplate remain open. If a customer builds a custom feature and distributes their product, they must share that feature’s source code under GPL too. This prevents competitors from taking your boilerplate, extending it, and selling it as a closed product. But it also scares away customers who want to keep their code private. GPL is common for WordPress themes because WordPress itself is GPL. It protects the ecosystem but limits commercial use.
Comparison Table: MIT vs GPL for Boilerplates
| Factor | MIT | GPL |
|---|---|---|
| Can be used in proprietary software? | Yes | No (unless you own the copyright) |
| Requires source distribution of modifications? | No | Yes if distributed |
| Ease of monetizing directly | High – sell as a paid product | Low – harder to sell to businesses |
| Community adoption potential | High | Moderate |
| Protection against proprietary forks | None | Strong |
| Compatible with most other licenses | Yes | Limited – GPL is viral |
Real-World Examples of Each License
Look at popular boilerplates and frameworks. React (MIT), Node.js (MIT), and Tailwind CSS (MIT) all use permissive licenses. They dominate because companies can adopt them without legal fear. On the other hand, Linux (GPLv2) and WordPress (GPLv2) use copyleft. They enforce openness at the cost of commercial flexibility. For a boilerplate you plan to sell, ask yourself: do you want more customers or more control? If you want to sell to startups and agencies, MIT is the obvious choice. If you want to build a community that keeps every contribution open, GPL might fit.
One common compromise: dual licensing. You release your boilerplate under GPL for free, then sell a commercial license (MIT) to customers who pay. This is how MySQL and other open source companies work. It lets you have both adoption and revenue, but it requires extra legal work and clear communication.
Legal Risks You Should Know
Using GPL code in a MIT-licensed boilerplate can cause license conflicts. Because GPL is viral, if you include any GPL code in your boilerplate and distribute it, the entire work must be GPL. That means you cannot mix GPL code into an MIT boilerplate. On the flip side, you can use MIT code in a GPL project. Check every dependency in your boilerplate to avoid accidental violations. Many boilerplate sellers audit their dependencies and only use MIT-licensed libraries to keep things simple.
Another risk: not including a license at all. Without a license, copyright law defaults to all rights reserved. No one can legally use your boilerplate. While that may seem protective, it actually hurts adoption and reduces potential revenue. Always pick a license and add a LICENSE file to your repo root.
How to Choose: Decision Steps
- Identify your primary revenue model. If you plan to sell the boilerplate as a product, go with MIT. If you plan to sell support or services around a free open source core, GPL can work.
- Check your target audience. Are they businesses building proprietary products? Choose MIT. Are they open source enthusiasts or WordPress developers used to GPL? Choose GPL.
- Review all dependencies. If any dependency uses GPL, you may be forced to use GPL overall. Prefer MIT dependencies to keep options open.
- Consider dual licensing if you have the resources. Provide a GPL-free version and charge for a commercial license.
- Include a clear license file and a short explainer in your docs that tells users what they can and cannot do.
Trade-offs You Can’t Ignore
MIT gives you broad adoption but no protection against a competitor who takes your boilerplate and sells a closed source version. GPL protects your code from being locked up but shrinks your paying customer base. There is no universal answer. The right choice depends on whether you value adoption or control more. For most boilerplate sellers, MIT unlocks more revenue, especially when you sell through marketplaces. For template developers contributing to communities like WordPress, GPL is the default.
Ultimately, your license is a tool. Use it intentionally. For a deeper dive into crafting a monetization strategy around your boilerplate, check out our piece on Hello world! where we cover pricing and positioning tactics that work with both licenses.
Frequently asked questions
Can I change the license of my boilerplate later?
You can change the license for future versions, but existing copies under the old license remain licensed under that version. If you have contributors, you need their permission to relicense their contributions. Always decide early to avoid complications.
Does GPL mean I can’t sell my boilerplate?
No, you can sell GPL-licensed code. The GPL allows you to charge for distributing the software. However, once a customer buys it, they can redistribute it for free. Your revenue comes from selling added value like support, customization, or a commercial license.
Can I use MIT-licensed boilerplate in a GPL project?
Yes, because MIT is compatible with GPL. The GPL allows incorporating MIT code as long as the MIT license notice is preserved. The combined work must be licensed under GPL, but the MIT parts remain separately licensed.
What if I use no license at all?
Without a license, copyright law grants you all rights by default. Others cannot legally use, modify, or distribute your code. This reduces adoption and can actually hurt your revenue because potential customers are afraid of legal uncertainty.
Which license is better for a SaaS boilerplate?
MIT is typically better for SaaS boilerplates because you want customers to build proprietary applications on top. GPL would require them to open source their whole app if they distribute it, which SaaS companies avoid. MIT leads to more sales.