Nearly all open source software licenses require (or at least lawyers generally suggest they require) users to include the full license in the root of the project that they are protecting.

One lawyer I spoke to suggests this is a legacy of the CD age, when it was necessary that a full license be included in a jewel case.

But today, we're living in the cloud age. Why can't I, for instance, simply host the full license at my website, and include the title + URL of that license in the header of my source files?

Bonus: If it's generally agreed that established licenses must be kept intact in the root, why hasn't the OSI of FSF approved a license that you can refer to by URL, and what is keeping someone from creating that license?

  • 4
    One issue that comes to mind is that URL's can change or be discontinued. Aug 14, 2013 at 14:17
  • 6
    'The Internet is not ubiquitous' would be the most obvious reason (even if someone has the internet when they download your software, it may not be available to them when they want to extend/modify it).
    – TZHX
    Aug 14, 2013 at 14:23
  • 9
    Are you asking why THE WHOLE LICENCE NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED in the root, or why the whole licence needs to be included IN THE ROOT?
    – DougM
    Aug 14, 2013 at 15:04
  • Just pointing out that we seem to be talking up a false dichotomy here; You ask why the license has to be in the root and why can't it be online at a URL instead? There is a third option that no-one is mentioned; the license is bundled with the software but in a "docs" directory or something and the comment in the header of code files reflects that. I agree with the good reasons given why the License should be bundled with the software, but that doesn't stop in going in a docs directory.
    – James
    Aug 14, 2013 at 15:12
  • 4
    The reason it's almost always at the root is so it's easy to find. When I download your project, I browse the root, and one of the first things I see is the license. Simple as that
    – JohnL
    Aug 14, 2013 at 15:35

3 Answers 3


From the GPL FAQ (but the advice is applicable to all licenses):

Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?

Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.

It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.

The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in the program.

(emphasis mine)

The moment the site hosting you license goes down or changes its URL paths, people who have copies of your software can no longer verify what rights they may safely exercise. Suppose even that you could somehow guarantee that that exact URL will be forever online: the ability for users to verify that their use of your software is legal still depends upon the ability to connect to that particular URL. While this requirement may not onerous in your particular city/country/planet, it may be onerous elsewhere. You should not impose this requirement, especially when the workaround (including the full license text) is trivial.

You might answer this complaint by saying, "So what? If the URL does go down or is not accessible, an unambiguous descriptor like 'GNU GPL v3' should be sufficient. Full-text copies of the GPL are plentiful; users can look up the license themselves." A few problems immediately spring to mind:

  1. This doesn't generalize to license identifiers that are less clear (the phrase "BSD license" comes to mind).

  2. This doesn't generalize well to licenses that are less common or have been customized ("GPL with linking exceptions" comes to mind: which linking exceptions?). How common does a license need to be before it's reasonable to expect a user to find it reliably by name?

  3. This still requires users to have an Internet connection, which may not be the case, even if they had a connection at the time they got the software. (And they may not have had Internet access when they got the software: "the CD age" has not yet ended in many parts of the world. As an additional case, consider national populations that have widespread Internet access but censor large parts of it.) A consequence of freely-redistributable software is that a recipient may not receive a copy of your software directly from you or through a distribution channel you originally anticipated.

One final argument against license links is noted by MichaelT's comment below: it could allow you to dynamically, retroactively change the license. This could be done intentionally, but it could also be done by accident, if you changed the license between versions of the software, but used the same license link for both versions, thereby clobbering your old license out of existence. Such a switch would add difficulty for people who need to prove they got their older copy under a different license than the current version.

So why do I have to keep the license in the project root?

I'm not a lawyer, but I've never seen any compelling argument that you do need to keep licenses in the project root. Even the GPL, which specifies that the license must accompany each copy of the work, is silent on how it must accompany the work. (This may be because the GPL could be applied in non-software contexts, where the notion of "root directory" is not meaningful.)

Keeping the license in the root directory is probably a good idea because it maximizes the likelihood the user will see it, and thereby minimizes both user frustration and the likelihood of complaints against you for trying to hide the license in some obscure directory. If you have many licenses, it might make more sense to place them all in their own folder, and include an obvious project README that contains file paths to find the license for each component.

Placing your license in the directory root is a helpful practice also because it can disambiguate the licenses of modules that are licensed differently that the work as a whole. Suppose my project FooProj uses the stand-alone module BarMod. FooProj might be GPL-licensed, while the standalone module might be MIT-licensed. When I first open FooProj, I see a copy of the GPL in the root and understand that work as a whole is GPL-licensed. When I descend into the folder for BarMod, I see a new license file there, and I understand that the contents of this folder are MIT-licensed. Of course, this is only a helpful aid; you should always indicate the licensing of your modules explicitly in a README, NOTICE, or similar file.

In sum, using the file root is a matter of convenience and clarity. I have not seen any legally binding open-source license text that requires it, nor do I know of any reason why it would be legally required. Your license should be reasonably easy for the recipient to discover; including the license in the project root is sufficient, but not necessary, to satisfy this criterion.

  • 3
    Consider also the possibility that you link to a remote site for site.com/foo/license.txt that you got under a BSD license, but since then it has been relicensed under GPL v3 and thats what site.com/foo/license.txt now contains. But the version you downloaded has different rights.
    – user40980
    Aug 14, 2013 at 17:20
  • I've marked this answer correct as it seems to lay out the conventional & legal wisdom around OSS licensing. That said, this thinking strikes me as a bit paranoid for this backed-up, version controlled world that we live in. I'm not sure the risk of canonical URL content tampering is any greater than the risk of someone accidentally deleting a portion of a license contained within the root. And even if the risk is greater, I'm skeptical that it's so great as to compel devs to include full licenses in their software, as opposed to, say, citing externally-hosted licenses in code comments. Aug 15, 2013 at 21:04
  • FYI, perhaps a sign of things to come for OSS licensing: Creative Commons 4.0 permits licensees to link to a separate page that includes attribution information. Nov 29, 2013 at 18:14

But today, we're living in the cloud age. Why can't I, for instance, simply host the full license at my website, and include the title + URL of that license in the header of my source files?

There do exist licenses that permit that. Apache 2.0, for example. Apache 2.0 requires only that each source file contain a small header that points to the Apache 2.0 License's canonical URL. There is no need to reproduce the full license in the source tree.

From the Apache 2.0 license itself:

APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work

To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following boilerplate
notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own 
identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) The text should be  
enclosed in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also 
recommend that a file or class name and description of purpose be included 
on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification 
within third-party archives.

    Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

    Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
    you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
    You may obtain a copy of the License at


    Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
    distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
    WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
    See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
    limitations under the License.
  • I think that appendix is incomplete or at least operates with the assumption that you're already including a copy of the license. From the 2.0 text itself, when distributing the Apache-licensed work: 4.(a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License;
    – apsillers
    Aug 14, 2013 at 16:47

There is no requirement that it must be in the root of the project. It's simply the most common place, and thus the first place people will look in order to find the license. For that matter, even if it weren't common, it's still likely the first place people will look. Since the license exists to inform, hiding the information doesn't make much sense.

If you hide it behind a URL, there's no absolute guarantee that that URL will be always be available. If it's a file in the root of the project, by definition it will always be available.

In short, this is the most effective, most user-friendly place to put it.

  • The project root is the first place one would look: it is the top of the tree, root of the folder hierarchy. All the top-level documentation should go there: readme, license, etc. Those files can direct the reader to dig deeper elsewhere in the project, but the root is the first place I look for anything.
    – user22815
    Oct 3, 2014 at 19:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.