Skip to main content
57 votes

Is GPL "for research purposes only" self-contradictory?

Basically yes to everything you say, although politically it may get complicated. Section 10 of the GPL v3 forbids any further restrictions your rights under the license: You may not impose any ...
Philip Kendall's user avatar
33 votes
Accepted

Choosing the most restrictive open-source license

There is no free software / open source license that will satisfy your requirements. These licenses generally focus on the freedoms of end users, they are not trying to restrict anyone. The freedom to ...
amon's user avatar
  • 39.1k
31 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

Simply put, a requirement to seek outside approval in order to make or deploy changes is not GPL-compatible, nor is it even a requirement within the definitions of free and open-source software. Part ...
apsillers's user avatar
  • 36.3k
30 votes
Accepted

Restricting the open source by adding a statement in README

You're technically allowed to do this, but at that point your project is no longer Apache-licensed. You've created a new set of licensing terms, which are no longer open source. It would be in your ...
amon's user avatar
  • 39.1k
29 votes

Is GPL "for research purposes only" self-contradictory?

Searching for the term "GPL for research purposes only" shows a number of hits that shed a somewhat different light on the matter. It seems that there is quite a bit of GPL'ed software in the ...
MSalters's user avatar
  • 1,159
29 votes
Accepted

How do I license, "Use my code as per the GNU GPL, but don't put it on GitHub"

Once you have Open Sourced some code other people can, and probably will, place it on other hosting services and there have been many times when everybody has been grateful for this because the ...
Steve Barnes's user avatar
26 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

You are approaching this the wrong way. First, you are assuming any wish to modify the software will be malicious, while in reality people will want to make all kinds of changes you hadn't anticipated ...
Ángel's user avatar
  • 781
25 votes

How do I license, "Use my code as per the GNU GPL, but don't put it on GitHub"

Bob wrote a GPL-licensed media player that I really liked, FooPlayer v1.0. Then Bob "updated" FooPlayer to 2.0 and decided to put ads in the software. He stopped offering the original 1.0 altogether. ...
apsillers's user avatar
  • 36.3k
17 votes
Accepted

Can I have a GPL-compatible license that change by use?

Yes you can create your own license that delegates to the GPL/LGPL as appropriate. However, this will not work as intended. The Free Software / Open Source (FOSS) community thinks that discriminating ...
amon's user avatar
  • 39.1k
14 votes

Is GPL "for research purposes only" self-contradictory?

You are reading the user manual. You are not reading copyright licence terms. The technical name in United States law for what you are reading is directions for use. Almost all (there are ...
JdeBP's user avatar
  • 249
13 votes
Accepted

Is the Maximum Use License for Everybody (MULE) a FOSS license?

Forbidding sale of the software has precedent in OSI-approved licenses, for example SIL-OFL 1.1 says: Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified ...
amon's user avatar
  • 39.1k
13 votes

Restricting the open source by adding a statement in README

If you don't want people to copy your ideas and algorithms you should not use an open source licence at all. Putting some kind of statement in your README would just add contradiction to your files. ...
Iogui's user avatar
  • 326
11 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

Modifications are still possible, as long as they go through the official channel and are verified to be fully compliant by the community. This would make the software definitely not open source as ...
Philip Kendall's user avatar
10 votes

How do I license, "Use my code as per the GNU GPL, but don't put it on GitHub"

As long as you use open source your wish is impossible. Actually it is essential part of open source to allow the easy access and publish ability of the source code. Todo so without notifying the ...
openCage's user avatar
  • 603
10 votes

Restricting the open source by adding a statement in README

Short answer,as well as everything else, its not likely to be enforceable, simply because you didn't present it as part of the license. Let's look at your idea, and start from basics, the license ...
Stilez's user avatar
  • 325
10 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

If I received GPL licensed software and pass it to someone else, that is copyright infringement unless I follow the GPL license conditions. Telling the receiver they cannot use the software for ...
gnasher729's user avatar
  • 1,265
9 votes

How do I enforce not just the letter but also the spirit of open source for an open culture?

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 ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.6k
9 votes

How do I license, "Use my code as per the GNU GPL, but don't put it on GitHub"

What you can do is require the users to use my code as per the GNU GPL, but don't put it on GitHub under the same name Such a policy can be implemented using a trademark. GPL doesn't allow you to ...
Dmitry Grigoryev's user avatar
8 votes

Do I have to credit small changes to my source?

My esteemed colleague has written that "there's a general understanding that contributing code to open source projects is assigning the open source project the rights to the code". I'm not sure that'...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.6k
8 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

Modifying and using the software is not the same thing as connecting to my network. The GPL and related free software licenses are about the rights to modify and distribute the software, not to ...
Robert Columbia's user avatar
7 votes

Is GPL "for research purposes only" self-contradictory?

The GNU GPL explicitly gives anyone receiving a copy of the software the right to use it for any purpose. That is in direct contradiction to "for research purposes only" and "CAN NOT be used for ...
Lourens Veen's user avatar
6 votes

Telling authors that they can't have it both ways: Restrictions in readme, and an Open Source license

Should I raise it as an issue on their github? I would prefer an issue on the GitLab instead of a private email since there will be a public record of the problem if the author decides not to fix ...
apsillers's user avatar
  • 36.3k
6 votes

How do I license, "Use my code as per the GNU GPL, but don't put it on GitHub"

The way to prevent this is to not make your project open source. No, really. What do you think open source means?
Quitting Due To Antisemitism's user avatar
5 votes

How do I enforce not just the letter but also the spirit of open source for an open culture?

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 ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
4 votes
Accepted

Restrict commercial use to protect users

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 ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.6k
4 votes
Accepted

Convergent Licencing

We have to distinguish between open source projects as a software artefact and open source projects as a social community. It is perfectly possible to license open source software in a way so that an ...
amon's user avatar
  • 39.1k
4 votes

Is the Maximum Use License for Everybody (MULE) a FOSS license?

Oh, good; yet another attempt by the crayon-wielding world to mesh free software ideology with the idea of non-commercial use. How well they all work. IANAL/IANYL, but I agree with you that the ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.6k
4 votes

Do I have to credit small changes to my source?

This is regulated in the ToS of GitHub, Section D, ยง6: 6. Contributions Under Repository License Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a license, you license your ...
Polygnome's user avatar
  • 188
3 votes

Is GPL "for research purposes only" self-contradictory?

ADDITIONAL NOTES <TheProject> is for research purposes only. <TheProject> CAN NOT be used for commercial purposes. I read this differently. There's some critical defect in the software'...
Joshua's user avatar
  • 316
3 votes

Is GPL "for research purposes only" self-contradictory?

Of course laws vary from country to country. Not knowing which country the software comes from and not knowing in which country the software will be used makes it difficult. Summary valid for Germany ...
Martin Rosenau's user avatar

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