5

With respect to my colleague Bart, a licence that "encourages" users to contribute back would not fail the desert island test: that is engaged when the licence requires such contribution or communication. The example Debian quote in the linked page refers to an author who says "you must hereby send me your changes"; note "must". A licence that asks the ...


4

Making your software available under free and open source terms means the legal terms under which you make your software available meet certain standards (namely, the FSF's four freedoms and the OSI's Open Source Definition). Those definitions allow commercial reuse/distribution, so any legal terms that don't allow commercial reuse will not fall within the ...


3

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. GPL is a copyleft license. It means that you legally obliged to distribute derivative work under the same or equivalent license (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works for instance). LGPL is a more relaxed license in this regard and allows ...


3

If there is such a license, it would not be an open-source license. Such a license would likely fail the Desert Island Test Can a group of people exercise their rights under the license, even if they have no way of communicating with you. Besides that, a copyright license is not the best way to motivate people to contribute bug reports/feature requests/...


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