New answers tagged

2

Open source licences generally require that any copyright notices (they do include the author) have to be retained. The package (at least source, but often also the binaries) are required to ship with licence and warranty information, which today will naturally include where to get upstream sources and the author's contact. Asking to display author and such ...


8

The question is, can anyone fork my repo and translate it into a different language under the Creative Commons License Non-commercial Non-derivative that I have? No. I believe that the copyright laws of several countries even explicitly mention translations as a form of derivative work that requires permission from the copyright holder. If you want to keep ...


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: ...


2

Your other way to phrase the question isn't equivalent to the first. If you want to force commercial users to not modify your software at all, that's impossible. If you want to force commercial users to make their changes available to the original project, that is possible. You can do this by dual licensing. Software is open-source as long as it's available ...


6

Is there a Software licenses that force contribution back to the original project only for commercial use? Yes, but it would not be an open source license because this is a clear violation of the "no discrimination against fields of endeavor" clause: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of ...


Top 50 recent answers are included