54

No free/open-source license may disallow commercial use. The whole purpose of the Free and Open movements is an altruistic one: if you're making your project free and open, you're gifting it to the public at large, under certain terms (which often boil down to "attribute it back to me"). See the Open Source Definition for some explanation of what these ...


43

Can it be applied? Yes. But it would seem unhelpful to make anybody using the music to repeat the contents of the MIT license which makes multiple references to "Software"; that is at best going to confuse anybody receiving the work. Fortunately, there are licenses designed for more general creative works; the best known of these are the Creative ...


40

TL;DR: Open Source is not about fairness, but about Software Freedom. It is irrational to publish Open Source, and to be then surprised that others are exercising their freedoms. Once a company has clear expectations about why they want to do Open Source, they might be able to use tools such as CLAs or trademarks to that effect. In the best case, such an ...


38

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 ...


33

This license isn't going to do what you want it to, for two reasons: I get the code, I add one space to an error message. It's now a modified version, so I can distribute it. I get the code. "My friend", Khilip Pendall, makes a modification which adds a bug to the code and distributes it under your proposed license. I take "Khilip"'s ...


32

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 ...


24

My colleague has posted an excellent explanation of why a licence that does exactly what you've asked for would be pointless. It would also be non-free, because the right to distribute both non-modified and modified copies of software are two of the four freedoms of free software. You say that you want "in case a person wants to distribute the exact ...


20

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 ...


19

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: ...


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 ...


17

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

Frame challenge: neither the FSF nor OSI have point 2 as a goal. To quote the FSF: “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may ...


17

There is no open source license that would satisfy these requirements because it goes against the fundamental principles of Software Freedom and the Open Source Definition. The freedom to create (competing) forks is essential: free software should not be shackled to a particular maintainer. A milder version of your license situation could be possible though: ...


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 ...


16

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, ...


16

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 ...


15

What you are looking for is, I think, the common practice of selling exceptions. When an organization or a company is the sole copyright owner of a software, or have a permission to do so from all copyright owners, they may offer simultaneously the software under a free copyleft license (such as GNU GPL) and under a more permissive proprietary license. In ...


14

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.


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 ...


14

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 ...


14

While the question is valid, the broadest ideal of open-source is to make all software open-sourced, including that which is used for profit. Broadly, some strong-copyleft OSS licenses have a "viral" property, requiring prohibiting anything not under the same license from linking to that component, others are permissive or non-viral. The GPL and AGPL ...


13

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 ...


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

Yes you can (but with big caveats) There are several licences that disallow commercial use of the software (or other intellectual property). Most notably CC BY-NC 3.0 but please keep in mind that it's generally not recommended to use CC BY-NC 3.0 licence for software (you still can!). There are several problems associated with this kind of licensing though ...


13

implement the same patches with some minor changes (e.g. replace a for with a while) under their 2-clause BSD license While copyright is based on the implementation of an idea, it is broader than the exact implementation of an idea. Anything which "starts" from your code is a derivative work of your implementation and would therefore be covered by ...


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

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 ...


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