Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
i want to publish my software under a opensource license with the following conditions:
you are allowed to:
Share — to copy, distribute and
transmit the work
use a modified
version of the code in your
application
you are not allowed to:
publish modified versions of the code
use the code in anything commercial
is there a software license out there that fits my needs ?
Having a noncommercial clause is against the spirit of opensource. So no, there isn't. And if you do make one yourself then you should not be calling it opensource but instead call it a non-commercial license.
There are in fact code with the kind of licensing you are talking about and there are widely recognised by the opensource community as being non-opensource. MINIX (by Tanenbaum) is one of them. The code is freely available and public and anyone can see but have severe restrictions on re-publishing modifications. MINIX is widely considered to be a closed-source piece of code.
Lots of commercial, proprietay, closed-source embedded operating systems are actually distributed as code and have only copyright laws protecting them (instead of complex, byzantine DRM). Just the fact that people can see your source code does not make it open source.
One last example. Windows (including XP, Vista and Seven). Microsoft makes the source code Windows available to anyone who needs it for non-commercial, educational purposes provided you sign an NDA. Their source license sounds a lot like what you want. Check out the license here: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/basics/wrklicense.mspx. I doubt anyone would argue that Windows is opensource.
You can publish code under any licence you want but it will only be F/OSS, Open Source, if it complies with the OSI definition : http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. Your conditions are incompatible in several ways.
Take note that almost all players in Open Software use OSI-compliant licences - you would be going completely against all current opinion and practice.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
There's a LGPL-licensed console application. I want to create a commercial GUI front-end for it and distribute it bundled with this console app. Does LGPL license allow that?
Note that I am not using a LGPL-licensed library, I am using a stand-alone application.
I tried reading the license itself, but it is still unclear to me.
Note that I am not using a LGPL-licensed library, I am using a stand-alone application.
The first L in LGPL stands for Lesser not Library. So it does not play much of a role whether it is a library or a stand-alone application.
LGPL is with weaker copyleft. That means, if you re-distribute that LGPL'ed software in object code (binary) you need to offer the source for it (for that version you distribute).
However it is lesser, meaning that you do not need to put your code under LGPL as well. Take care that your users should be able to tell both applications apart (and replace the one or other part easily).
However if you write GUI frontend, I think this is a pretty standard case, you will create a command-line and then execute the LGPL'ed binary.
Take care that this is from a developers perspective, not from a lawyer. A lawyer would require to see your current application and then could tell you in more detail the whats and whereabouts for your very concrete case.
It's also practical you get in contact with the author of the LGPL'ed software, they might be interested to know which supporting tools exist. As they have choosen the LGPL it's likely they do not expect your software to be under LGPL as well. So if you get in touch with the original authors you can also clarify your issue, albeit I don't think there is one technically.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am starting an opensource project.
I want to allow the following:
Free for noncommercial use, bins and source mods, like with the GPL, but I would like to retain commercial rights for myself, and provide another license for commercial use for customers who prefer that option.
The number of licensing options seem a bit overwhelming. So my question is:
Which opensource license should I
use?
Which commercial license should I
use, if there are any standard ones
available? Or should I come up with
my own one here?
There is no problem with dual-licensing. GPL is fine for the noncommercial variant, and is widely accepted.
With the commercial one, I do not know of any standard ones. I would recommend you write one, that really suits your needs.
There is Hanselminutes Podcast on licenses here: Open Source Software Licensing with Jonathan Zuck of ACT Online. Towards the end they talk about the dual licensing of the MySQL database.
There is also a transscript of the podcast as PDF, have a look at the end of the first column on page 7.
No open source license (as defined by the Open Source Initiative) will forbid commercial use of software. You can use a version of the GPL to disallow taking your software proprietary; companies could still use it internally, or distribute it for their own purposes, but they couldn't package it up and sell it as normal shrinkwrap software. Don't use a license like Boost or BSD, as they allow unlimited commercial usage with no restrictions.
You should decide what commercial use you want to allow, and that will depend heavily on the software and what people might want to use it for.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
How would one follow the proper steps in order to license a "package" under the terms of Artistic License 2, as published by the Perl Foundation.
Is there a guide, such as GNU's GPL how-to that I'm missing?
I've only found CPAN's Licensing Guide, I believe it would apply for external use too, wouldn't it?
Otherwise, I presume adding a notice at the start of each source code file, and including a copy of the license itself with the distribution would do the trick.
Still, since licensing is quite an important issue, I'd like to hear any views on this.
Before I start, I must warn you I'm not a lawyer.
As far as I know, the way you communicate the license to others is not dependent on any specific license. If you're the sole author of the work, you hold the copyright and have the exclusive rights to decide what is allowed with respect to distribution, modification etc. You can communicate your decision through a well known licence to help potential users of your work understand the terms of usage.
From a practical view, adding a copyright notice to the distribution & copyright headers pointing to that notice to source files should be enough. Also, the licence should be clearly mentioned on the site where you provide download of the distribution.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
This page summarizes different license types' terms (GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc):
http://www.codeproject.com/info/Licenses.aspx
Say I write a program for sale that uses a software under one of the licensing types where "Can be used in commercial applications:" is true, and "Can be used in proprietary (closed source) applications:" is true.
Then if the "Bug fixes / extensions must be released to the public domain:" line is true, what does it mean to me? What am I required to do?
Thank you.
This will usually mean that if you build a patch or other modification of the program and want to distribute it you must also publish the sources of that modification under a license explicitly mentioned in the program license text.
In some license types this includes both the other program and any program using that (including your program). In others (like LGPL) this will only be required only for modification made to that program, but not to your program if they are separated (LGPL is typically used for libraries and doesn't enforce publishing the library consumers).
simply:
you can sell (and release with your own commercial license) your own app built with the provided code.
but:
you can not improve on the code (of the software you are using within your app) directly and not give it to public domain (usually it is in the original license of the software).
Instead of relying on those summaries, you would be advised to carefully read the license for any open source license you plan to use in a closed source product.
For instance, LGPL does not actually require you to release source code changes to the public domain. Rather, it requires you to release them under the terms of the LGPL.
If you are nor sure that you understand the implications of a particular license, talk to your company's lawyers.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there any codeplex license that allows some one to use my code any way they want but not to create a program that does the same thing that my programs do?
The only way you can prevent a program from reproducing functionality is with patents.
Following on from your comment:
You will need to have a lawyer draft a license as you have very specific needs. The license will have to specify the exact conditions the code can be used under (or the conditions it cannot be used under.)
I am not aware of any "generic" license which covers this type of arrangement. And there are a wealth of issues to consider, for example:
Step 1. You have automatic copyright over your source code. This gives you, and you along the ability to distribute your application legally.
Step 2. You release the code under an open source license. The code is still yours, but now people can use it for whatever they wish, including recompiling and distributing the project under a different name (but with attribution?)
Step 3. You want to impose a restriction on the open source license, which you are within your rights to do. However this has to be very carefully worded and thought out.
Can I use part of the code in a similar application? How do you define similar?
What if I modify it? What about derivative works? Are they the same thing as your product?
Does it cover future versions of the code?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. These are just ramblings that I can recall from the legal and ethical modules from my CS degree. All I can do is advise you to hire a lawyer to draft a license.