Consider the following case:
- I write some code and place it online under License X.
- A researcher, or group of researchers, makes changes to the code and publishes a scientific paper based on the results obtained.
- They used the code they modified (based on my code) to obtain the results, but make available neither binaries nor modified source code.¹
What license would be appropriate to ensure they are forced to release the modified version of the software?
Note a key difference from the general practice of releasing binaries without source code, is that in this case there may be no binaries available at all but only published results based on modified software.
- I was looking into either the MPL-2.0 or the EUPL-1.2. They appear to be a middle ground between GPLv3 and MIT. Would these work, any major differences between the two one should be aware of? (one difference appears to be regarding something called state changes I ask about in this other question)
- There seems to be some politics surrounding GPL. I don't know if this is true but was looking to staying away from these just in case.
- Can I put a copyright on my website and make the code private when the source code is partially copied from an open source GNU GPL V3 project
- Rights of deep learning output trained on CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC images
¹ Usually when the code is not available they provide it on request, so this is more of a theoretical question.