Open source license for grants: what Web3 programs ask

Which open source licenses will you meet?

An open source license lets anyone use, study, change and redistribute the code. The Open Source Initiative keeps the list of approved licenses, the usual reference when a program asks for "open source". Licenses fall into three groups.

Permissive: MIT and Apache-2.0

A permissive license lets others reuse your code in any project, including closed-source products, as long as they keep the notices. MIT is a few short paragraphs. Apache-2.0 is longer and adds an express patent license from contributors and a requirement to mark modified files. Rust projects are often dual-licensed under both, which is what Filecoin Open Grants asks for.

Copyleft: GPL-3.0 and AGPL-3.0

A copyleft license requires that modified versions you distribute stay under the same license, with source available. GPL-3.0 applies when you distribute the software. AGPL-3.0 goes one step further: if you modify the program, users interacting with it remotely through a network must be offered the source. Both are OSI-approved, so they satisfy a plain "open source" requirement, but not one that says "permissive". How copyleft terms apply to bytecode deployed on a public chain is a legal question; if it matters for your business, ask a lawyer.

Source-available: BUSL

The Business Source License 1.1 lets anyone read, copy and modify the code and use it outside production, while production use is limited to whatever the licensor's "Additional Use Grant" allows. On the Change Date, at most four years after a version is first published, that version switches to a Change License that must be GPL-2.0 or later or compatible with it. The license text states that it is not an open source license, so BUSL code will not meet a requirement for open-source or permissively licensed work.

Docs, data and content

Documentation, courses and datasets often go under Creative Commons licenses such as CC BY 4.0 (reuse with attribution) or CC0 (public domain dedication). Creative Commons advises against using its licenses for software, so keep code and content under separate licenses. Btrust's education grants, for example, require all content to remain open source and freely available.

Which license should you pick for a grant?

Pick the license by working down this list and stopping at the first rule that applies.

1. The program names one. Use it. Filecoin Open Grants means MIT plus Apache-2.0.
2. The program says "permissive". Use MIT or Apache-2.0. This covers Monero CCS and the Ethereum Foundation's PhD Fellowship, whose 2026 call has closed with no 2027 call announced.
3. You are extending an existing project. Use that project's license and contribution rules. Zcash Community Grants requires new open-source software to follow Zcash contribution standards, including a CONTRIBUTING.md.
4. You want contributors to grant patent rights. Apache-2.0.
5. You want modifications to stay open. GPL-3.0, or AGPL-3.0 for a hosted service, as long as the program does not require permissive terms and your integrators can accept copyleft.
6. You want to delay forks. That is what BUSL does, and it conflicts with any open-source grant requirement. Ask the program before applying.

Check your dependencies too. Apache-2.0 code can go into a GPL-3.0 project, but GPL-2.0-only code cannot be combined with Apache-2.0 code. A reviewer who spots a license conflict will ask about it.

What do grant reviewers check?

Reviewers check that the license is real, applies to everything funded, and was in place when promised.

• A LICENSE file at the root of each repository, with the full license text.
• License identifiers in package metadata and source files. Solidity files carry an SPDX-License-Identifier comment, and the compiler warns when it is missing.
• Public development. OpenSats requires code to be developed in public, not dumped at the end.
• Every deliverable covered, including docs, scripts and deployment configs.
• A date for "open source later". xGov lets some projects open-source only after approval; elsewhere, an undated promise reads as a no.
• Verifiability. Octant asks that core code be independently verifiable, so make builds reproducible from the public repository where you can.

What if your business needs closed parts?

You can usually take a grant and keep a business, as long as the funded work is the open part. The common pattern is open core: the SDK, contracts or indexer the grant pays for are open source, and the hosted service, premium features or brand stay yours.

Say this in the application, in one paragraph: what will be open, under which license, and what stays closed and why. Programs whose rules allow a mix include Aleo (open-source elements), the Sentient Foundation's Open Source AGI Grants (at least one essential part open), Aptos (Aptos-native or open source, or a plan to open-source) and the Stellar Community Fund (open-source contracts). For mainly commercial work on Solana, the Solana Foundation points teams to convertible grants, which turn into an investment only if the project hits set milestones.

Some programs exclude closed work outright: ESP funds only free, non-commercial outputs, OpenSats does not fund closed-source work, and the Canton Development Fund does not fund private or proprietary products. Read our guide on how to write a Web3 grant proposal for where the licensing paragraph fits, and our guide to Web3 grant agreements for the IP terms you sign.

FAQ

Does a Web3 grant require an OSI-approved license?

A Web3 grant that says "open source" usually means a license approved by the Open Source Initiative, such as MIT, Apache-2.0 or GPL-3.0. Some programs are stricter: Monero CCS requires permissive licenses and Filecoin Open Grants requires MIT and Apache-2.0 dual licensing. A custom or source-available license such as BUSL does not meet an open-source requirement unless the program explicitly accepts it.

Can you change the license of grant-funded code later?

You can usually relicense code you fully own for future versions, but copies already released under an open source license stay available under it. A grant agreement may also fix the license for funded work, so changing it could breach the agreement. Read the agreement's intellectual property clause and ask a lawyer before relicensing grant-funded code.

Is MIT or Apache-2.0 better for a grant-funded project?

MIT and Apache-2.0 are both permissive and both widely accepted by grant programs. MIT is shorter; Apache-2.0 adds an express patent license and asks for modified files to be marked. Many projects avoid the choice by dual-licensing under both, which is exactly what Filecoin Open Grants requires. Follow any license the program names first.

Who owns the code built with a grant?

Ownership of code built with a grant depends on the grant agreement, not on the license alone. Some agreements leave copyright with the grantee and require an open source license, others give the funder more rights, and templates differ: MoonDAO's proposal template asks for an IP disclosure, and Stellar's academic grants ask for a no-patent statement. Read the intellectual property section before signing, and get legal advice if it is unclear.