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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

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 ...


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