-1

I was wondering if there was a software license that has the same requirements as the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 since they do not recommend its use for software. I looked on choosealicense.com but it seems no license fit these requirements :https://tldrlegal.com/license/creative-commons-attribution-noncommercial-sharealike-4.0-international-(cc-by-nc-sa-4.0)

I know some people do not consider this as open-source, but I personally consider that open-source work should not be use to generate profit.

EDIT : I was almost sure I'd have these reactions (by lookings at other same-genre-topics), but please, I'd like us to talk about licenses, not discuss forever about your personal opinions of what is open-source and what it should be used for. This, for me, is open-source, if you don't consider this as open-source just call it "open-source-for-non-commercial-use" and that's it.

| improve this question | |
  • 3
    How do you define "commercial use"? It's a term which is harder to define for software than it seems. – Philipp Jan 2 '16 at 21:17
  • I would define it as "use of a source code in a software for sale or in order to make profit". – Dash Jan 2 '16 at 21:24
  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about open source. – Philipp Jan 3 '16 at 12:12
  • 1
    While we usually allow questions asking for a recommendation with restrictions that would make it non free, I see no reason to when the OP already knows that those restrictions make it non free, so I'm voting to close this question. – curiousdannii Jan 3 '16 at 13:17
  • I know that some people consider it as not open source, but I do consider this as being open-source, as I want to share my sources as long as they are not use for commercial programs (because in that case I consider that you have to give at least some money to the original développer). So maybe a license that allows commercial use as long as the profit is shared exists ? – Dash Jan 3 '16 at 14:36
2

You can try SNCL.

CAN: Distribute, modify
CANNOT: Commercial use, hold liable, use trademark
MUST: Include copyright, include notice, include license and give credit.

Source: Simple non code license (SNCL)

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Good find, but just a note, that you would be causing people a dis-service by calling a project open source. – Zizouz212 Jan 3 '16 at 22:11
  • Although not for commercial purposes, the source is still accessible to everyone and editable. I mean, it's like a pseudo-opensource. :) – Leonardo Paffi Jan 3 '16 at 22:17
  • 1
    But pseudo-opensource means entering a domain that is completely, and legally unstable. Even the license that the asker mentions (CC BY-NC-SA) is criticized for the lack of a clear definition towards 'commercial activity' (One example that comes to mind is in paid, post-secondary institutions). – Zizouz212 Jan 3 '16 at 22:21
  • @Zizouz212 If I explain in the license what I consider commercial use is in detail, I can use the license correctly right ? – Dash Jan 3 '16 at 23:48
  • The license by default "don't allow commercial distribution of the original or modified without authorization of the author". So they cannot earn money selling your source or binary either modified or not, without your authorization. – Leonardo Paffi Jan 4 '16 at 9:43
6

The Open Source Definition and also the Free Software Foundation specifically insist that no restrictions on use are allowed. The FSF even encourages making money off software, as long as the license terms are followed.

What you describe is definitely against the definition of open source.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    That is why I said "I know some people do not consider this as open-source, but I personally consider that open-source work should not be use to generate profit.". I don't know how you can encourage the use of others' work to earn money though. Furthermore I do not want to come up with my own license, that's my I'm asking if one meeting my requirements exists or not (apart from the creative commons one). – Dash Jan 3 '16 at 2:09
  • 3
    @Dash And I don't understand how you can discourage people making money based on other people's work when they do not directly hurt the original creator financially by doing so. You are talking about making money as if it's a bad thing. – Philipp Jan 3 '16 at 12:18
  • 3
    @vonbrand You are absolutely correct about that. But you aren't answering the question. It is a completely legitimate question to ask, just not on this website. If you would like to criticize a question, please post a comment. – Philipp Jan 3 '16 at 12:22

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.