New answers tagged

-2

It sounds to me like the Apache License 2.0 would fit the bill. Software source code will be public so anyone can read it or use it. This is less a matter of license and more a matter of how you decide to host your repository. Your license can give users a right to access the source, but forcing people to use a public repository (github, etc) is ...


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 ...


32

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 ...


1

From my research here, I found that maybe dual licensing is the way to go here. No, dual-licensing will not have the desired effect. When you dual-license something, the recipient gets to choose which license they want to conform to, so I would be able to take a writing of you and re-publish it under the MIT license. Is it possible to completely ...


Top 50 recent answers are included