6 ms·

So if I want to write an OSS library that can't be used for monetary gain, what license do I release it under? AGPLv3? EDIT: Actually, I misspoke, since moneta

So if I want to write an OSS library that can't be used for monetary gain, what license do I release it under? AGPLv3? EDIT: Actually, I misspoke, since monetary gain isn't the problem. I should have said "used against user freedom", but that's much less well-defined. I want a license that is as "open" as possible, for whatever definition of "open".

kemitchell 7y ago
It sounds like you want a noncommercial license, which is a perfectly fine license to want, but not one traditionally honored as open. Consider https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/
- mwcampbell 7y ago
  What's the difference between that license and the License Zero Prosperity license?
  - kemitchell 7y ago
    The current version of Prosperity uses Creative Commons' approach to prohibiting commercial use. Polyform uses a new, and in my opinion, much improved approach with practical "safe harbors" of clarity for predominantly noncommercial organizations, as well as common personal uses. Prosperity also includes a built-in free trial period for commercial users, while Creative Commons does not. The forthcoming version 3 of Prosperity will be written as a fork of Polyform Noncommercial, leveraging its improved approach, still with a built-in free trial. If you're interested in those terms, I'd greatly appreciate feedback: https://github.com/licensezero/prosperity-public-license/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/licensezero/prosperity-public-license/blo... If something in the terms isn't clear, that's the terms' fault, not yours. I'd appreciate an issue or an e-mail, so we can make it clear.
jobigoud 7y ago
You can't. It wouldn't be OSS if I couln't take your library and resell it. You could look at CC-BY-NC-SA, but it's not Open Source and not appropriate for software.
- snorkasaurus 7y ago
  I'm dense. Why isn't it appropriate for software?
  - jobigoud 7y ago
    I think it's mostly because of the kind of legalese used in the license text, as they are designed for art. From their FAQ: > Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software? > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. (...) > Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. (...) https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
    - snorkasaurus 7y ago
      I hadn't noticed that before. Thank you.
m463 7y ago
It would not be free software. Free software passes on the freedom to the USER of the software, preserving access to the source code, the ability to change it, etc.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  Not to nitpick but OP mentioned "OSS" not "FOSS." Open does not mean free. You can allow others to access to your IP without the freedom to use it however they want, since nothing is black and white.
  - erik_seaberg 7y ago
    https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated specifically excludes licenses that “restrict the program from being used in a business”.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  Maybe. But the status quo doesn't pass along those rights to the users of the USER's services. Unless it's like the AGPL
_frkl 7y ago
I'd say as strongly copy left as possible, although that will inevitably bring with it some restrictions for users. Parity ( https://paritylicense.com/ https://paritylicense.com/ ) is my favourite at the moment (created by the blog posts author). It's interesting in that it doesn't try to prescribe the license downstream projects use as long as it's free (in contrast to for example GPL) but is, at the same time, very strict in regards to when it applies (basically every time Parity-licensed code 'touches' non-free software), which means there is no Saas loophole for example.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  That's an interesting license, thanks! I would have liked some examples about what exactly it does, because reading the text doesn't make all the ramifications clear, but it looks promising.
  - _frkl 7y ago
    If some of the text is unclear, you can submit an issue on the license' GitHub repository. Kyle (the creator of the license) considers this an issue with the license, and is very open to improve the text to eliminate any such issues readers have.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      I will, thanks. It's not unclear in a legal way, just in a human "what can my users/forkers/etc do with this license" way (which may still be a valid issue to open).
- type0 7y ago
  Isn't Parity License a source-available share-alike freeware license? It seems very different from GPL and even the ideas by which copyleft was originated.
  - _frkl 7y ago
    Would you care to elaborate? To me, it seems very much in the 'spirit' of what GPL set out to do back when, updated to eliminate issues that weren't/couldn't have been forseen. Parity is not perfect (yet), but to me it's the most viable attempt at a modern copyleft license to date. Technically, one can argue Parity is not 'open source', if one acknowledges that only OSI approved licenses should be called 'open source'. I don't, and quite a few other folk don't either. Lots of people do, though.
jdc 7y ago
(IANAL, but) Yes, you'd use the AGPL because it basically maximizes user freedom. It doesn't stop people from running services for a living with the licensed code _and_ it protects the original authors and service users from exploitation. It's just the GPL with an extra clause and that's a good thing.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
"can't be used for monetary gain" is very difficult to define. A simple example is replacing a paid software with FLOSS for cost saving. For a company, this directly leads to increased profit. This is one of the reasons why FLOSS licenses cannot go further than AGPL in limiting scope and use.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  The intent is probably that companies that make a profit cannot use the software.

kemitchell 7y ago

It sounds like you want a noncommercial license, which is a perfectly fine license to want, but not one traditionally honored as open. Consider https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/

mwcampbell 7y ago
What's the difference between that license and the License Zero Prosperity license?
- kemitchell 7y ago
  The current version of Prosperity uses Creative Commons' approach to prohibiting commercial use. Polyform uses a new, and in my opinion, much improved approach with practical "safe harbors" of clarity for predominantly noncommercial organizations, as well as common personal uses. Prosperity also includes a built-in free trial period for commercial users, while Creative Commons does not. The forthcoming version 3 of Prosperity will be written as a fork of Polyform Noncommercial, leveraging its improved approach, still with a built-in free trial. If you're interested in those terms, I'd greatly appreciate feedback: https://github.com/licensezero/prosperity-public-license/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/licensezero/prosperity-public-license/blo... If something in the terms isn't clear, that's the terms' fault, not yours. I'd appreciate an issue or an e-mail, so we can make it clear.

jobigoud 7y ago

You can't. It wouldn't be OSS if I couln't take your library and resell it. You could look at CC-BY-NC-SA, but it's not Open Source and not appropriate for software.

snorkasaurus 7y ago
I'm dense. Why isn't it appropriate for software?
- jobigoud 7y ago
  I think it's mostly because of the kind of legalese used in the license text, as they are designed for art. From their FAQ: > Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software? > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. (...) > Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. (...) https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
  - snorkasaurus 7y ago
    I hadn't noticed that before. Thank you.

m463 7y ago

It would not be free software. Free software passes on the freedom to the USER of the software, preserving access to the source code, the ability to change it, etc.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
Not to nitpick but OP mentioned "OSS" not "FOSS." Open does not mean free. You can allow others to access to your IP without the freedom to use it however they want, since nothing is black and white.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated specifically excludes licenses that “restrict the program from being used in a business”.
paulryanrogers 7y ago
Maybe. But the status quo doesn't pass along those rights to the users of the USER's services. Unless it's like the AGPL

_frkl 7y ago

I'd say as strongly copy left as possible, although that will inevitably bring with it some restrictions for users. Parity ( https://paritylicense.com/ https://paritylicense.com/ ) is my favourite at the moment (created by the blog posts author). It's interesting in that it doesn't try to prescribe the license downstream projects use as long as it's free (in contrast to for example GPL) but is, at the same time, very strict in regards to when it applies (basically every time Parity-licensed code 'touches' non-free software), which means there is no Saas loophole for example.

StavrosK 7y ago
That's an interesting license, thanks! I would have liked some examples about what exactly it does, because reading the text doesn't make all the ramifications clear, but it looks promising.
- _frkl 7y ago
  If some of the text is unclear, you can submit an issue on the license' GitHub repository. Kyle (the creator of the license) considers this an issue with the license, and is very open to improve the text to eliminate any such issues readers have.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    I will, thanks. It's not unclear in a legal way, just in a human "what can my users/forkers/etc do with this license" way (which may still be a valid issue to open).
type0 7y ago
Isn't Parity License a source-available share-alike freeware license? It seems very different from GPL and even the ideas by which copyleft was originated.
- _frkl 7y ago
  Would you care to elaborate? To me, it seems very much in the 'spirit' of what GPL set out to do back when, updated to eliminate issues that weren't/couldn't have been forseen. Parity is not perfect (yet), but to me it's the most viable attempt at a modern copyleft license to date. Technically, one can argue Parity is not 'open source', if one acknowledges that only OSI approved licenses should be called 'open source'. I don't, and quite a few other folk don't either. Lots of people do, though.

jdc 7y ago

(IANAL, but) Yes, you'd use the AGPL because it basically maximizes user freedom. It doesn't stop people from running services for a living with the licensed code _and_ it protects the original authors and service users from exploitation. It's just the GPL with an extra clause and that's a good thing.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

"can't be used for monetary gain" is very difficult to define. A simple example is replacing a paid software with FLOSS for cost saving. For a company, this directly leads to increased profit. This is one of the reasons why FLOSS licenses cannot go further than AGPL in limiting scope and use.

saagarjha 7y ago
The intent is probably that companies that make a profit cannot use the software.