4 ms·

Choose a license

15 points by todd8 11y ago

hardwaresofton 11y ago
While this site is a great resource for quickly describing the most common open source license, one of the questions I have the most common is which license/combination I can use for restricting commercial use of a product (so something like the community/paid versions of other software, or allowing some software to be used for personal/educational but paid commercially). I think the answer to the question is a type of creative commons license (I looked it up once but didn't commit to memory) -- would love to see that answer here
- x1798DE 11y ago
  CC-NC, you mean?
  - hardwaresofton 11y ago
    Yes, this is what I meant -- but the other commenter (cyphar) was correct -- it does not apply to code (as opposed to content), and was not built for that purpose. It seems like the more likely solution is to just not do open source, or do open source and add some value (support/custom extensions/etc)
- cyphar 11y ago
  There isn't a free software license for that (because such a restriction makes your software proprietary). Also, creative commons licenses are not well-suited to software (they don't consider certain intricacies about derived works, for example) and they explicitly do not provide users of your software any protection from patents. A question you should consider is why you want to charge for the use of your software. Many companies are happy to pay for licenses, where you can just sell them an identical copy of your software. In addition, you can provide support for your software (adding features, fixing bugs).
  - hardwaresofton 11y ago
    Ah I know (that it would make it proprietary), but I thought there was a way to dual license to make it open in the case of personal/educational use and require payment for professional use? If companies work to maximize profit and minimize costs, I wouldn't bet on them wanting to pay for a license just to have an identical copy of the software (with no value add). I also realize that I can provide that value-add with support -- thanks for pointing that out, it's definitely something to consider.
- liveoneggs 11y ago
  2 clause BSD (or you might actually like 3 clause) will allow you to keep your proprietary (pro) extensions private. None of them stop forks, of course.
  - hardwaresofton 11y ago
    Thanks for noting this -- while I wasn't looking for this kind of setup quite, it's definitely an option when considering business models that support open source (at least in part)
julie1 11y ago
This site is so reductive and looking like crap it is annoying. What about the liability? The moral rights? The second creation's right? The endorsement clause? Picking up a license on a website that does not even point to any clear definition of license and why we need them is disinformation. Even the FSF I love to criticize has a better page that is more informative and complete : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html Of course it requires to read, but choosing a license is an important choice. And proprietary licenses are fine if they fit your needs.

15 points by todd8 11y ago

While this site is a great resource for quickly describing the most common open source license, one of the questions I have the most common is which license/combination I can use for restricting commercial use of a product (so something like the community/paid versions of other software, or allowing some software to be used for personal/educational but paid commercially). I think the answer to the question is a type of creative commons license (I looked it up once but didn't commit to memory) -- would love to see that answer here

x1798DE 11y ago
CC-NC, you mean?
- hardwaresofton 11y ago
  Yes, this is what I meant -- but the other commenter (cyphar) was correct -- it does not apply to code (as opposed to content), and was not built for that purpose. It seems like the more likely solution is to just not do open source, or do open source and add some value (support/custom extensions/etc)
cyphar 11y ago
There isn't a free software license for that (because such a restriction makes your software proprietary). Also, creative commons licenses are not well-suited to software (they don't consider certain intricacies about derived works, for example) and they explicitly do not provide users of your software any protection from patents. A question you should consider is why you want to charge for the use of your software. Many companies are happy to pay for licenses, where you can just sell them an identical copy of your software. In addition, you can provide support for your software (adding features, fixing bugs).
- hardwaresofton 11y ago
  Ah I know (that it would make it proprietary), but I thought there was a way to dual license to make it open in the case of personal/educational use and require payment for professional use? If companies work to maximize profit and minimize costs, I wouldn't bet on them wanting to pay for a license just to have an identical copy of the software (with no value add). I also realize that I can provide that value-add with support -- thanks for pointing that out, it's definitely something to consider.
liveoneggs 11y ago
2 clause BSD (or you might actually like 3 clause) will allow you to keep your proprietary (pro) extensions private. None of them stop forks, of course.
- hardwaresofton 11y ago
  Thanks for noting this -- while I wasn't looking for this kind of setup quite, it's definitely an option when considering business models that support open source (at least in part)

julie1 11y ago

This site is so reductive and looking like crap it is annoying. What about the liability? The moral rights? The second creation's right? The endorsement clause? Picking up a license on a website that does not even point to any clear definition of license and why we need them is disinformation. Even the FSF I love to criticize has a better page that is more informative and complete : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html Of course it requires to read, but choosing a license is an important choice. And proprietary licenses are fine if they fit your needs.