3

I want to use some source code under CC-BY-SA for my company's project. That project is commercial and closed source code. I want our project not to have obligation to release the source code. Is this possible?

  • 1
    Usually a CC license is not a good choice for software. But since the code you want to use exists, it would be important to know exactly how you want to "use some source code" of it. How do you build and distribute your proprietary software? – user10225 Apr 25 '18 at 7:51
  • 3
    CC-BY-SA says "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original." See Using images with CC-BY-SA license in slides or a thesis. For source code, compiling the CC-BY-SA code for use in a closed source program is a transformation of the CC-BY-SA source code, so at the very least you will need to provide that in order to comply with the ShareAlike requirement. – Brandin Apr 25 '18 at 8:03
5

You can include CC-BY-SA source code in proprietary software iff you do not publish that software. The CC-BY-SA requirements only apply once you Share[1] the adapted work. For example, this would allow internal tools, or possibly a server backend where that usage does not constitute a public performance.

[1] as defined in section 1.k in the CC-BY-SA 4.0, compare Distribute and Publicly Perform in sections 1.d and 1.j in the CC-BY-SA 3.0

If you desire to publish software that was adapted from CC-BY-SA source code, you can only do so under the terms of that license. In particular:

  • you must publish your software under that version of the CC-BY-SA or a compatible license,
  • you must provide proper attribution for the original source code,
  • you must not apply additional terms or restrictions, and
  • you must not apply technical restrictions such as DRM.

Note that these requirements may be at odds with the terms and conditions of some app stores.

Absent from the CC-BY-SA is the requirement to publish your source code. You can publish CC-BY-SA software in any format you like, including in compiled form. However, recipients of that software are free to reverse-engineer and decompile it, and to adapt that software. So while the CC-BY-SA is generally similar to the GPL, the CC-BY-SA does not require you to publish your preferred form of making modifications (the source code).

Note that most code on Stack Overflow is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0. This means that such code cannot be copied freely, not even for open-source projects, unless they are licensed under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 compatible license (which, indirectly, includes the GPLv3).

  • In case someone chooses to publish the derived code as source... would it mean the code of the entire project must be published (including the code that does not depend from the derived work)? Or would it be sufficient to publish only the module/class/function that is actually based on the original work? – Silicomancer Mar 8 at 23:45
  • 1
    @Silicomancer This is not entirely clear, but it would not seem sensible to treat the CC-BY-SA as fundamentally different from the GPL in this respect: both apply to the entire creative work, which is generally understood to be the entire program. In the end, what counts as a derivative work (Adapted Work in CC lingo) is for courts to decide. However, the GPL has additional requirements that extend to build scripts and upstream dependencies. If a user of CC-BY-SA covered code wants legal clarity, they should exercise their GPLv3 relicensing option. – amon Mar 9 at 12:27

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.