4 ms·
I went with MIT + a single condition saying no final work could compete directly with my app. I'm not very experienced with open source licensing. Any recommend
by embwbam 13y ago
I went with MIT + a single condition saying no final work could compete directly with my app. I'm not very experienced with open source licensing. Any recommendations?
- dec0dedab0de 13y agoI don't think that would actually count as open source, at least according to http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
- xj9 13y agoThat's shared source, not open source. Anyway, I usually use BSD or WTFPL
- embwbam 13y agoWhat difference does it make practically in this case? Should I switch it?
- lucian1900 13y agoMIT vs BSD makes no practical difference. However, the license you have now is not actually MIT, but MIT+your extra restriction. That makes it not open source and a liability for anyone that would use it, since your extra restriction could be interpreted in any number of ways. One way to keep the option of legal offense against clones is with differently-licensed assets. MIT your code, but choose one of the non-commercial or share-alike Creative Commons licenses. There are lots of them and you're bound to find one that fits your purposes.
- Sanddancer 13y agoI'd say MIT for the code, and license the graphics, sound, etc, assets under a separate noncommercial license. This'll let people peek under the hood, learn from it, and use it in their own app with fewer legal questions as far as what's allowed and disallowed.