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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

As written, your license would not be an open source license. In particular: The requirement to keep the title unchanged is a restriction on translating the book into a different language, failing the "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" clause of the Open Source Definition (OSD). The requirement to be "fully identified" and &...


11

With great respect to my colleague, although what you require wouldn't meet the open-source software definition, it is understood that things are somewhat different in fields of creative endeavour. In particular, it's understood that creative works shouldn't purport to put one creator's words in another creator's mouth. Such a restriction would make a work ...


9

The use of the non-FLOSS Commons Clause would probably prevent this insofar as it prohibits collecting "fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software." Rebranding the software and selling merchandise is probably allowed, but any paid service or support is probably not allowed. I don't see this as being a large problem. I ...


9

Could this scenario be considered unfair? No. It is simply a bad business plan of company A. The GPL and other open source (as in freedom, not beer) licenses are exactly what they are. There is no "if, when or but". One reads the license, follows it to the letter, and that is that. There is no moral, ethics or fairness here. Company A was able to ...


8

I'm not aware that OSI has taken any position on the SOFA licence, but I can see a number of reasons why it might not be regarded as a free licence. Section 3c provides that The names of all routines in your derived work shall not include the prefix "iau" or "sofa". This seems to me at odds with freedom four of the four freedoms, the ...


8

The comments hit on a lot of these points, but let me try to provide a more comprehensive response. Unless you have a strong reason to do so (and character count of your file header comments is not a strong reason), you should stick with one of the well-known software licenses. Your header just needs to mention the license that it is covered under and you ...


5

Different licensors have different intensions. But licensors issuing Open Source licenses are generally trying to maximize Software Freedom. Copyleft licenses try to maximize Software Freedom by ensuring that every recipient or user of the software has full rights e.g. to share this software further and to modify it. Modification requires access to the ...


5

Since redistribution is core feature of free software and open source software, we can say for sure that no FLOSS software license will satisfy your needs. One alternative that may satisfy you is to use a copyleft license like the GPL so that recipients may distribute modifications as long as those modified forms are distributed with source code under the ...


5

As long as you don't distribute further, the license (permissions you give third parties) is quite irrelevant. If you want to publish it, then the license becomes relevant. And what license(s) you select depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want it to be shared freely, but not be used for closed developments, use a copyleft license. If you want ...


5

You certainly could use the MIT license for a piece of music, but it's probably not a good idea. Software licenses are very different than licenses for so-called "cultural works" (things like art, music, or literature). In the early days of free software, these differences caused problems for several software projects who used licenses that were ...


4

Do I need to pick a license, if I don't plan to publish the book? No. What would be a good license? A Creative Commons license is appropriate for non-software works. Use their license chooser to choose a CC license. What happens, if I don't pick a license? All rights reserved. What happens, if I want to include non-free songs? You have to ask for ...


4

There's two fundamentally different takes on open source licenses: a) the permissive ones like MIT, Apache etc which - roughly speaking - don't care what happens to their sources as long as the credits are maintained and communicated. b) And there's the more strictly open source licenses, the copy-left licenses, which want to make sure that any derivative ...


4

Open source licenses are not allowed to discriminate against fields of endeavor. That means you cannot use an open source license for your code and use that license to prevent competitors from opening shop. Some things that are possible with various open source licenses are: The AGPL requires that modified versions must be under the AGPL license and their ...


3

From Open Source Initiative website FAQs: https://opensource.org/faq#copying-and-identity Does Open Source mean anybody else can use my name and logo? No, at least not any more than they could otherwise. Open Source is about software source code, not about identity. That is, letting people use your code under an Open Source license is not the same as ...


3

As HighCharts is not under an open-source license, you have some restrictions on which license you can use for your project. In particular, you cannot use any of the licenses from the GPL suite (GPL, LGPL, AGPL). All of those licenses have the requirement that you have the right to apply the conditions imposed by the license also to your dependencies. The ...


3

Let's say that someone uses your project (licensed under your custom license) in an MIT licensed application. Since the MIT license explicitly allows the software to be distributed closed source, your custom license would be ineffective and would not make sense. If you do not want your library to be used in proprietary software, then the best choice would be ...


3

The CC0 is an excellent instrument for making it possible for everyone to use a software. It effectively disclaims all copyright you may have to the fullest degree possible. Thus, if you want anyone to use your code without further restrictions (including without any requirement to attribute you), then CC0 is an excellent choice. There are some downsides to ...


3

When it comes to copyright, your specification and the code that implements it are two completely unrelated things. This means that whatever copyright license you choose for your specification, it has no effect on the license an implementer can use for their code. If you want to enforce an open-source implementation of your specification, then you must look ...


3

Suppose if I uploaded to my Github repository a .pdf of a technical book I've written and want to share. According to CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, if someone were to fork the repository, they would still be bound by the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to not modify (create a derivative) and redistribute that derivative, correct? Yes, that is correct. Forking a repository does not ...


2

This would not be a free license. However, you can choose the GNU GPL which will allow redistribution, but it has to stay open source.


2

A corner stone of open-source licensing is that anyone and everyone is allowed to redistribute or republish the work. If you don't want that, then you must not use an open-source license. To protect your project from re-publication, any license that does not allow redistribution is sufficient, or even no license at all. It does not matter if people can ...


2

if the whole work has to be published (a must) under GPLv.3 or LGPLv.3 as the used gettext.inc, gettext.php, streams.php are GNU GPLv.2 or later and Smarty is LGPLv.3 or if the whole work could be distributed also under a commercial license which is not compliant with GNU GPL principals? As you are using a library/package under the GPLv2+ license, the ...


2

If you are the copyright holder1 of all the code you wish to release apart from that owned by Microsoft/Nintendo, you have a couple of options here: Release your code under the GPL, but with an exception allowing linking with console manufacturer's code. Dual license your code. The version that you give to the console manufacturers can be binary-only, and ...


2

It sounds to me as if you want AGPLv3. A requirement that the Original Developer is attributed in distributions AGPLv3 s4 provides that "You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice", so the ...


2

You have two different classes of tools here: Tools 1-3 (Z3, ANTLR and WOLFGANG): you are using these directly in your program, so the license of your program must be compatible with the licenses of all three of these. Tool 4 (ITS-Tools): as this is something which is clearly a distinct entity from your program, this is aggregation and has no bearing on ...


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