14
There are no open-source licenses that forbid selling copies of the software, because that kind of restriction is not allowed in a license that is recognized as an open-source license by the community/FSF/OSI.
However, there are open-source licenses that make the business model of selling copies of the software very unattractive. These licenses are strong ...
answered Nov 23 '20 at 9:18
Bart van Ingen Schenau
19.7k3 gold badges28 silver badges51 bronze badges
12
NPOSL is an Open Source license; you've made a common reading error with the license text. It's the licensor, not the licensee, that needs to be a non-profit. In other words, a non-profit could publish code under the NPOSL, but everyone else can use the code.
The NPOSL is a variant of the OSL; the OSL's author explains the license on their website:
There is ...
11
I do not think this is a question that has a straightforward yes or no answer.
The CC NC clause is really hard to get a grasp on, and Creative Commons do not provide much guidance about it. Their FAQ: Does my use violate the NonCommercial clause of the licenses is deliberately vague, and can be summed up in this sentence:
Whether a use is commercial will ...
9
Disallowing commercial use is a restriction that open-source licenses are not allowed to have. Any license that doesn't allow you to use the software for commercial purposes is not considered to be an open-source license by both the FSF and OSI, which are the two organizations that essentially define what the term "open source" means.
The common route in ...
answered Oct 8 '17 at 8:16
Bart van Ingen Schenau
19.7k3 gold badges28 silver badges51 bronze badges
6
If it is Free Software, getting the source and removing the "buy me" nag should trivial to do, quickly followed by a new github with the code posted.
To do what you want, you simply have a not too nagging screen asking for donations and offering commercial support or wishlist work (I have $25 and wish there was a keyboard short cut for foo).
You'll want ...
6
No, this is not really possible.
The next closes thing that you could do is to add an additional term under GPLv3 section 7:
7(b) to require the “preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it”
7(c) to prohibit “misrepresentation of the origin ...
6
I'm in no way a lawyer, and this is something that you should consult a lawyer for, in terms of actual wording in your agreements/contracts...
The ability to license a work belongs to whoever owns the copyright of that work. Where the startup is the owner of that work, it has the ability to offer it to other's under a license (in the same way that I can ...
6
The easiest approach is to license the source code under one license and art assets under another license. The code can be under an open source license, and the art under a non-commercial license like Creative Commons BY-NC1. CC BY-NC requires attribution, as will any mainstream open source license you choose for your code (unless you choose a niche ultra-...
6
A license for public distribution should be clear as to what people can do with it. "Non-commercial" isn't clear. There's room for a lot of disagreement about what "commercial" means. Can I redistribute it on an ad-supported website? Can I use it to prototype a commercial activity, if I discard all the software before going commercial? How about if I ...
6
The Open Source Definition and also the Free Software Foundation specifically insist that no restrictions on use are allowed. The FSF even encourages making money off software, as long as the license terms are followed.
What you describe is definitely against the definition of open source.
6
The Geogebra license is nonsensical. You are absolutely correct: "GPL for non-commercial use only" is an impossible combination. The GPL specifically forbids the imposition of any additional licensing restrictions on top of the GPL:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License.
...
5
Given the details you give in comments, we can consider that your software would most likely be a derivative of the original research-only / non-commercial data.
Then the question is what the license has to say about derivatives? Does it even allow them? If it does not explicitly allow them, you are most likely not authorized from publishing any software ...
5
It depends. The type of user itself doesn't matter, at least according to Creative Commons. It is how you use it that matters. From their FAQ:
Does my use violate the NonCommercial clause of the licenses?
CC's NonCommercial (NC) licenses prohibit uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation.&...
5
As we say in this question, "The copyright holder is never beholden to the rules of the holder's own license grant". The copyright holder is not bound by his/her own licence.
Suppose that Alice creates a library, say libalice, which she releases under, say, LGPLv2.1. Although s2c requires that modified versions be released under LGPLv2.1, Alice is not ...
4
A commercial use is one primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation. (Source: Creative commons)
So if you only have the adverts for financing the page it's ok, but when you are making money out of it it's not ok.
I really don't want to attribute any link on that page that has the logo
That isn't possible. But you could ...
4
The article you reference obviously is lacking proper crediting at the minimum.
You should contact them so they can fix this alright. You should aslo alert them that they may need a proper authorization (which they may have already) from xkcd for a commercial usage
4
As a permissive license, the Apache 2.0 license does not prevent extra restrictions. The code may be used in any project as long as the attribution requirements are met. But such projects would not be licensed under the Apache license! And it would arguably be a misuse of the Apache trademark to call such a project Apache-licensed…
That particular licensing ...
4
Personality rights differ wildly between jurisdictions, especially between common-law and civil-law jurisdictions. In general, you have no right to use another person's name or likeness. There is no general exception for non-profit usage. You will have to check your applicable laws for details.
Personality rights have trademark-like aspects, but for natural ...
4
If your application does not rely on those as an integral part and the sound files are not distributed with your application: no issue. Just offers your user the possibility to use whatever sound source they personally are comfortable with, and you're fine; it is also permissible to provide some default sources. The sound files are only data the users work ...
3
There are a few solutions:
Qt is released under both a commercial license and the LGPL. Many companies find the LGPL license too contaminating (must release derivative works, no static-linking, must provide sources if distributing binaries, yada, yada, yada) so they pay significant amounts to Qt to have a commercial license instead.
Another option is to ...
3
You can absolutely have multiple names in a copyright notice, if the licensed work has multiple authors. In some jurisdictions there's also the concept of “joint authorship” that might apply here. You hold copyright automatically by authoring something. It is unnecessary (and quite unusual) to create a legal entity to hold the copyright.
Some projects with ...
3
If someone sued Red Hat, for example, if Red Hat (or the computer) crashed and the person lost all of their stuff, that the ruling would likely absolve Red Hat of responsibility
IANAL/IANYL. Nonetheless, I think that's likely, and it is because almost all free software licences include a clear and unambiguous liability disclaimer. Here's the one from the ...
3
You are correct that the license appears to be a modified BSD 2-clause license, with non-commercial language added, and that the license is not Open Source. This is similar to the "Academic Public License" created (and, as far as I know, exclusively used) by Omnet.
Since this license has never been submitted to an approving body (since it would not be ...
3
Copyright is automatic when you write the work - see copyright.gov for the US.
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
You can license that work to others or not as you wish. The Apache license doesn't give you copyright ...
3
See my answer to this closely related question. The gist is:
You cannot use the BCL-licensed JavaFX as provided by Oracle as pre-built for much anything beyond some evaluation and development
You can use the GPL+Classpath exception-licensed JavaFX runtime and open source libraries with an OpenJDK runtime for pretty much anything including commercial ...
3
The CC-BY-NC-4.0 license contains a definition of noncommercial in Section 1.i:
NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards
commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this
Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other
material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital
file-...
answered Jul 10 '16 at 21:15
Glenn Randers-Pehrson
3,6712 gold badges15 silver badges30 bronze badges
3
I know that some of those pictures have a copyright.
All those pictures are protected by copyrights. Some of them may have an explicitly stated copyright license.
Am I allowed to use those pictures for my (non commercial) Thesis? Do I have to filter them by the license and look on every site the picture appears?
When you are not the copyright holder and ...
answered Oct 31 '19 at 11:41
Bart van Ingen Schenau
19.7k3 gold badges28 silver badges51 bronze badges
3
Is there a way to
use license terms to make sure any contribution made to this repo would imply acceptance of the code to be licensed under the same non-open source license; or
Because CC BY-NC-SA is a copyleft licence, this will probably work. s3b1 requires anyone sharing an adapted version of the work - which would include a contribution or patch ...
2
You can try SNCL.
CAN: Distribute, modify
CANNOT: Commercial use, hold liable, use trademark
MUST: Include copyright, include notice, include license and give credit.
Source: Simple non code license (SNCL)
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
