We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
36

To my knowledge there is no such license. Note that this license may not be considered an open-source license. In no case would such a license be a permissive license that could be compatible with MIT or Apache 2 projects. Any wording to exclude copyleft licenses would probably also exclude any other open source licenses, so that your software would only be ...


27

the code or derivative works can never be re-licensed under a GPL/Copyleft license Ironically, I think the best practical strategy to accomplish this is to license your work under a (very weak) copyleft license that is incompatible with other existing copyleft licenses. Your proposed terms are not "permissive" as the term is used in FLOSS parlance: much ...


20

If you release your code under a permissive license, it is not possible for anyone to "relicense" it under a less permissive one like the GPL. By issuing a permissive license, you grant everyone the right to use your code in any way you choose. If someone, say, adds your code to a larger GPL'd product, that does not in any way affect your original license: ...


19

The WTFPL fulfills your requirements. Three very similar things you can do with your requirements are Release it under the WTFPL Release it under CC0 Release it into the public domain These things are effectively equivalent, but in some jurisdictions it is impossible to release copyright into the public domain. Creative Commons writes about this ...


18

If you are looking for something very permissive then you do have to use a license. Quoting GitHub's help page about licensing: Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from ...


17

It's impossible, if you keep it Open Source, you can always sell it. The Free Software Foundation says: Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. and Since free software is not a matter of price, a ...


16

The general term for this type of license is copyleft, share-alike or (pejoratively) viral licenses. The two best-known examples of such licenses are the GNU General Public License (for source code) and the Creative Commons ShareAlike licenses (for any creative content). Note that these licenses sometimes allow you to use an alternate, compatible license ...


14

That would be GitHub's Choose a License tool. This wizard will let you choose what you're most concerned about - be it giving maximum freedom to your users, preventing patent claims, or ensuring that downstream developers can't remove user freedoms (i.e. copyleft). As of this writing, there's 7 main licenses which this tool will help you compare. There's ...


13

If you want to restrict your software to not be used for commercial purposes, it is not open source. You can release it under multiple licenses - such as the GPL and a commercial license (where a user can choose one or the other, obviously having to pay for the latter) - but it seems from your question that you're not considering the GPL either. The GPL ...


13

Changing the license at this point can't help you, they already got their copy under the original license. But, if it really is the MIT license, it has a clause in it about attribution. So, if they really aren't meeting that clause you may have a case to sue them for any and all moneys they've collected. But, to do that you will need a lawyer, which is ...


13

Let's examine the MIT licence: Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders] Standard copyright string Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, ...


13

Anyone may use the software for any purpose they choose ... However, no one may place any type of restrictions on my software Your basic problem is that these are self-contradictory aims. In the context of modern copyright law, the receipt of freedoms doesn't automatically require you to extend them to others. If you don't want to allow people to take ...


12

By using WTFPL: you will not get any attribution when somebody use your work offending language/title of the license itself may potentially cause your project to be filtered out in some circumstances you don't drop any potential liability (that might possibly get you into trouble in some countries) As for better alternative, look at the MIT License.


12

I want to provide a commercial license for somebody who is willing to pay on top of open source one (LGPL allows it, right?) As a copyright holder you always have the option to dual license your works under any licenses you choose, including proprietary/commercial licenses. If you want to do so with others' contributions then you would be wise to get them ...


12

http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ also has a listing of licenses as well as comprehensive listings of what they are capable of. For your purposes, WTFPL and The Unlicense provides an ultimately high freedom for your code to be reused.


12

It seems that you don’t need a typical FLOSS license at all. If you want to let everyone use the code snippets and allow them to do whatever they want to do with them (which includes publishing these snippets themselves without explicitly granting others the freedom to use these), without having to attribute you and without having to reference a license, ...


12

The BSD license(s) and the MIT X11 license are some of the simplest and most permissive Open Source / Free Software licenses. With the exception of the original (and officially obsolete) 4-clause BSD license, they are also GPL-compatible (if that is something you care about). Both the MIT X11 license and the 3-clause BSD licenses require attribution. The ...


12

There's no legal problem doing that, but it is confusing, and it's almost inevitable that some people will think the MIT license will apply to the whole repository. This is a situation where a git submodule would make sense - split out the MIT licensed code into its own repository, and link to it with a submodule. Your local folder structure won't have to ...


11

I completely understand where you are coming from here. No one wants to hear that some of the code they've written has been used to make the leading virus of all time. Sadly, a licence with such a provision couldn't be called open source. This is actually addressed by the Open Source Initiative themselves: Can I stop "evil people" from using my program? ...


11

Looks like you need a little copyleft. The GNU Lesser General Public License seems perfect for you. A relevant clause: You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such ...


10

The open source definition does not allow discrimination against fields of endeavor, and you can't disallow commercial use if you want a license that meets the open source definition. An option is to go copyleft, which ensures that anyone who distributes software based on that software must follow the same license. It's possible (though tricky) to do that ...


10

There is no open source license that allows you to do this. The fact that you're looking to prevent people modifying your software without going through you restricts some of the freedoms that are essential to open source. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the license you want isn't an open source license. Additionally, if you're looking to be open ...


10

It seems like you want the legal power to bring a lawsuit against any student who uses your code in any capacity related to schoolwork. I think this is a bad idea for two reasons. First: this would not a FOSS license: it violates Freedom 0 ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose") and point 6 of the OSD ("The license must not restrict ...


10

You as the copyright holder of the code that you write can issue multiple non-exclusive licenses independently from each other. There are three different ways to allow someone else to use your copyrighted works: You can transfer your copyright in certain jurisdictions, in which case you have no further rights. You can issue exclusive licenses, in which ...


10

No common open source license grants co-authorship, in fact such a license could be incompatible with the Open Source Definition or the Free Software Definition. It is also very dubious whether a separately developed software would be sufficient to reach academic standards of co-authorship. Usually, the software used for research would be cited, just like ...


9

It looks like you want a permissive license. Perhaps, you could use the unlicense? From their site: The Unlicense is a template for disclaiming copyright monopoly interest in software you've written; in other words, it is a template for dedicating your software to the public domain. It combines a copyright waiver patterned after the very successful ...


9

It is no big problem at all. Many open source software depends on proprietary software. Think of all the open source running on Windows. The big point here is, that you only license your software (you cannot license the other stuff). So you may leave out the .Net-framework from your distribution and the one using your software must install it independently....


9

No. Any open source license allows anyone to share modified source code. From the annotated open source definition clause 3: 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn'...


9

The Open Source definition includes (point 5) "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and (point 6) "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", so such a license wouldn't be open source. The Free Software Definition's Freedom 0 ("To run the program for any purpose", which includes for running a school o a company) covers this.


9

To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no "pacifist" or "non-military" FOSS license that has been vetted by actual lawyers. Therefore if you wish to use a good license of this nature, you will need to come up with your own, vetted by your lawyers. Writing a good license is hard; for a pacifist license it would be very important to clear the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible