Timeline for Open-source license to prevent commercial use?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2019 at 9:09 | comment | added | cancerbero | I think the example described an open source developer trying to have a bigger picture about the topic and not so on business, but perhaps I'm wrong. I agree with that it's usually bad for business which product can be integrated with third parties. But sometimes the intention is the opposite. Also I would say no-license it's even bad human culture/knowledge itself as Licenses and patents were created because of just that - knowledge being lost when the author died - (although the reason of software patents today seems to be just the opposite). | |
| Jul 6, 2019 at 8:50 | comment | added | cancerbero | My point was just informing that not having a license is in its rights and what the legal situation will be if so. And BTW authors not licenses control changing the terms on which the creation is released (of course your actions in the past could limit what you can do in the future, but was a consequence of author's decision and not a license) . | |
| Jul 5, 2019 at 6:34 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | The advise in your last paragraph is usually bad for business. Licensing-aware professionals and legal departments try to avoid such crayon licenses as much as possible, because those licenses can easily have unintended legal side-effects that makes using them as part of a larger product tricky at best. For the well-known licenses it is at least known how they interact with each other. | |
| Jul 5, 2019 at 6:25 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | Licenses are the legal basis on which people other than the author are allowed to use a piece of code or a library. Without a license, only the author of the code is allowed to make changes or incorporate it in a larger program. This also holds for accepting contributions. One of the rights that must be explicitly mentioned in a license (and is mostly something for contributor license agreements) is the right to change the terms under which a piece of software is offered to others (i.e. the license). This puts the way that others contribute to your project firmly within the scope of licensing. | |
| Jul 5, 2019 at 2:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 5, 2019 at 6:54 | |||||
| Jul 5, 2019 at 2:33 | history | answered | cancerbero | CC BY-SA 4.0 |