46

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 ...


16

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 ...


12

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 ...


11

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 ...


10

The Creative Common licenses and thus especially CC-BY ones were designed as licenses for creative work like texts, like images, models etc. That includes of course work like texts in blog posts - and they are very suited to that, so go for that. I've no statistics, but as popularity of usage goes, wikipedia definitely is a good example, as is this site As ...


10

Your question presumes there's one free software community, with one set of goals in mind. In my experience, in any room containing ten free software enthusiasts, you can usually find at least eleven different motivations. But I do think there is something objective that can be said about the permissive vs. copyleft free licence distinction. Permissive ...


9

You are not the first person to want to try this. In 2019 Coraline Ehmke released the Hippocratic Licence, which forbids the use of covered software to violate human rights laws. She's not the first person to try it either, but she's not unknown in the free software world, so you may learn some salutary lessons from how it worked out for her. Apparently ...


8

Requiring people to contribute their changes back to the original project is a bit of a problem point for licenses. For open-source license, such a requirement fails the "desert island test" and prevent the license from being an open-source license. The desert island test means that a group of people on a desert island with no way of contacting the outside ...


8

There are no open-source licenses that have such a "no commercial use" restriction, as such restrictions are limitations on the freedoms that open-source wants to give. A fairly common business model is to dual-license your project with a copyleft license (like the GPL or AGPL) and a closed-source proprietary license. Someone producing a commercial product ...


8

To quote from Wikipedia: Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. So the copyright in what you've written covers the creative aspect of what you've written, but not the idea(s) therein expressed. If the code is entirely your own work, then as far as copyright is concerned, you are ...


7

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 ...


7

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 ...


7

To answer my own question, here is a small sampling of possibilities. First, there are licenses that are approved by both standards bodies, the FSF and the OSI, but which are often not acceptable in corporate codebases. A gold star goes to Affero GPLv3 (or later), which is banned at Google and almost certainly banned at any place which bans GPLv3. Speaking ...


6

I would strongly advise against using any v1.0 Creative Commons license, since the most recent iteration is v4.0, and has made many improvements to clarity and enforceability (especially in varied international contexts). Furthermore, Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) should suit you just fine. CC BY-SA's attribution requirement in Section 3(a)(1)(A) ...


6

What would be a suitable license for this situation? The license that comes closest to your desires seems to be the Apache 2.0 license. It is a permissive license that allows derived works to be distributed under different terms than your template and it has a mechanism for handling attribution notices. The license does have a requirement that if different ...


6

I recently worked with the team at GitHub to provide more information about 0BSD. More info about Landly's 0BSD now appears on choosealicense.com and, subsequently, will appear on GitHub license drop-downs (takes time). Beyond that you can also find more info about 0BSD on Wiki which I added after you asked this question. Other places to seek information ...


5

Am I allowed to distribute the project for money under this license? Yes. However, if you distribute/sell binaries, then you may not charge extra for the source code. And, as the MPL license is a weak copyleft license, you are giving the users of your library also the right to distribute it further, which means that selling copies of the software is not ...


5

How do I license a piece of software under the GPL or something equivalent, while excluding its limitation that no discrimination can be made for its applicability? For the GPL, you cannot. The GPL license explicitly forbids additional restrictions and if you do add such a restriction, recipients of your software are allowed to disregard and even remove ...


4

We have a question here from someone who is opposed to the current idea of copyright and wanted a license (s)he could combine with ordinary copyright to simulate the effects of his/her view of how copyright should work. It wasn't really possible to satisfy him/her, because of an underlying problem: when you take a system designed to achieve certain ends ...


4

The most obvious problem with this plan is that by including GPL-licensed code alongside code under a GPL-incompatible license, you might make it impossible for anyone else to distribute the software. As far as my legal knowledge extend, downstream recipients may only distribute a work that includes your GPL-licensed code if they distribute the overall work ...


4

The CC BY-NC license is most likely not the license you want if you are accepting contributions from others and you are considering publishing the work also as a physical book. As soon as there are multiple copyright holders to a work, all of them are bound by the license terms under which the contributions were made (which is typically the same license ...


4

Regarding the copyright, copyright automatically goes to the person (or organization) that wrote the code. You will own the copyright of all the code you write (unless you have a contract that says otherwise), but you will not own the copyrights on code written by others. And it doesn't matter if those others contributed directly to your project or if they ...


4

The translations are usually a part of the programme and translations hardly fit another context. So that's a good reason to license them under the same terms as the rest - and it saves you licensing troubles. Graphics assets often are treated differently as they might both come from different sources as well be used in entirely different context. ...


4

As you point out, the EDLv1 is BSD-like (in fact, it's a copy of 3-clause BSD with names changed in clause 3 and the disclaimer), so your rights and obligations are pretty simply stated in clauses one and two. IANAL/IANYL, but it seems to me that you may use modified mosquito within your organisation, and you may sell it without, and in neither case will ...


4

As has already been discussed here, the main reason for not using CC licences for software is that they fail to distinguish between the source and executable ("object code") forms of a work. There are a number of ways of making this distinction, but one I find useful is that the source form is easy to edit, but hard to use, while the executable form is easy ...


4

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/...


4

Their getting started page pretty much explains it all, quote: Our Mission is to establish requirements to achieve effective management of open source for software supply chain participants, such that the requirements and associated collateral are developed collaboratively and openly by representatives from the software supply chain, open source community, ...


4

No such license exists, or can exist. One of the basic principles of copyleft is that the recipient of the licensed content is permitted to use it as they see fit, so long as they extend that right to anyone they in turn provide the content to. There's also a more practical reason why "no commercial use" licenses in general are rare: it turns out that "...


4

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 ...


4

The Apache license allows use for any purpose, so using the code in a thesis is fine. However, it is common to cite relevant[1] libraries and software that you used in an academic context. This is entirely an academic thing and has nothing to do with licenses. You can cite the project website or the code repository website as you would cite any other ...


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