54

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 further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. "For research purposes only" is exactly the sort of term this is ...


28

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 academic medical world. Such software is generally not approved for regular medical use by the regulating agencies. Even if it was, any modification would render the ...


25

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 original maintainer has moved on, lost interest or otherwise stopped maintaining the code and their original hosting has stopped. If you find an out of date copy of ...


23

From the Open Source Definition: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. and The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. So a license ...


21

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. I didn't like that, so I found an old copy of 1.0 I had downloaded last year and uploaded it to GitHub. What part of this process do you want to prevent? What ...


13

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 Versions, may be sold by itself. But there is reason to believe the OFL is an outlier and wouldn't be OSI-approved if submitted today. Also, the OFL is only intended ...


11

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 exemptions) medical drugs and devices must come with them. You have probably seen them on medications that you have bought. Medical software is no exception. It ...


10

The concise, well-written answer by bmargulies does miss one thing in your question: Does it depend on the license used? Yes, it does. The GNU GPL, for instance, specifically says that conflicting provisions are void if they add restrictions. This is from section 7 of v.3; v.2 had the corresponding text in its section 6. All other non-permissive ...


10

You are asking three questions, I think: are they enforceable? do they tamper with the enforceability of the main license? do they pollute the open/free status of the overall license? The answer to the third question is 'yes'. If someone adds a clause that is incompatible with, for example, OSI, then it's not an OSI-licence. This has no legal implication ...


9

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 original author. The are some limitations, e.g. changing the license, using in combination with some other licenses, switching the author ... You have no right to ...


9

It means that to be considered open, a license is allowed to enforce that the original source must be transmitted unmodified (with the patch file proviso). This is for example useful for a security application where the original version has been vetted by experts in the field but random changes may open up vulnerabilities. Grouping the diffs into patch ...


9

To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no "pacifist" or "non-military" FOSS license that has been vetted by actual lawyers. Therefore if you wish to use a good license of this nature, you will need to come up with your own, vetted by your lawyers. Writing a good license is hard; for a pacifist license it would be very important to clear the ...


8

Such a license would definitely not be open source (6: No discrimination against fields of endeavor) nor approved by the FSF (Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose). The rationale for not allowing such restrictions is that defining exactly what should be allowed or forbidden will lead to a quagmire. In your particular case: ...


7

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 restrict source code distribution, but it doesn't prevent you from protecting your software's name (and the logo, if your software has one) from unauthorized ...


6

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 it, but an email would be fine too. What wording should I be using? I don't really want to get in a long fight of "Someone is wrong on the internet." I ...


6

You say that you add this stuff on the project's "release page" (presumably the same place where people can download a release). This is not in any way enforceable. When you make free software publicly available, people can share it with anybody without ever seeing your release page, so users may not been made aware of your terms. No court is going to let ...


6

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 commercial purposes". So yes, that makes the license as a whole self-contradictory. You are right that the licenses themselves are not free, but that only restricts ...


5

The Open Source Definition demands: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. (criteria 6) That demands that the license doesn't impose restrictions on the usage. Your criteria 'no commercial use' conflicts with it. See also this question. Derived Works. (criteria 3) That demands, that the license allows everyone to change the code and redistribute ...


5

The clause is actually a historical compromise copied from the Debian Free Software Guidelines; the latter states Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program ...


4

The way to prevent this is to not make your project open source. No, really. What do you think open source means?


4

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 licence is non-free, for the reasons you have stated. However, I notice that s6, the section that allows re-distribution under any OSI-approved licence provided it ...


4

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 “upstream” project will be able to merge downstream modifications (to the degree that such modified software has been published). For example, copyleft ...


4

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 copyright should work. It wasn't really possible to satisfy him/her, because of an underlying problem: when you take a system designed to achieve certain ends ...


3

The thing here is that restrictions to modifying the source code are only allowed, if the distribution of patch-files with the source are allowed. Patch-files are simple files that save the differences between two versions of files - especially sources for software. A patch-file can be automatically applied by common tools to create another version of a file....


3

A certificate is not a creative work. It is a strictly codified representation of a piece of information. Copyright does not apply. In some jurisdictions, there is a form of copyright for databases, i.e. collections of items which on their own may not be (and usually are not) subject to copyright. This is sometimes known as database right. In US law, ...


3

Yes and no. Referring to Mnementh's answer, the official definition of open source dictates that you can't, because you can't discriminate (laws excepted: export restrictions don't count). However, it all depends how strict you want to be with your open-source licensing. You could quite easily license your project in the spirit rather than the letter of ...


3

In addition to the good answers of bmargulies and Free Radical there is a perspective beyond the legal stuff. If you release something under an open source license, your express intent is to give others some rights, including the right to redistribute, use it without restriction and to modify and release the modified work. If you do not intent to grant ...


3

You have clarified that your concern is that your university's policy punishes both the creator and the re-user of plagiarised content, and you want an open licence that will prohibit that. IANAL/IANYL, but I don't think you are going to find one. Copyleft licences generally specify what kind of re-use may lawfully be made of content you so license. But ...


2

The copyright line that appears in almost all open-source licenses covers your back. It establishes that you wrote the code (or claim to have written the code). You don't need to say anything about plagiarism; that's already covered by the university's rules pertaining to academic usage, whether the material be computer software or passages from a book. ...


2

Yes, you can achieve your goal with the GNU GPL, except for prohibiting commercial use. Section 7 of the GNU GPL states that you may add "additional terms" as long as they do not restrict the rights granted by the GNU GPL. In your case, you want to grant an additional exception from the conditions in the GNU GPL or at least clarify your point of view. So ...


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