Question regarding license choice for my program
Question regarding license choice for my program
Hey fellow Linux enthusiasts.
I'm inching closer to releasing my program for Linux. I'll go into details on what the program is when I release it, as it's not really relevant to this question (IMHO).
Anyway, here are my prerequisites:
- the program will be free. I will accept donations, but the program will be free to download and use.
- open source.
- I'm happy for others to use my code, as long as I'm credited.
- I do not wish to allow others to use my code in commercial applications (as there will be mobile versions later, and I don't want clones selling it for money, as the mobile versions will also be free.
I'm looking for advice on the best code license to choose, based on my requirements. I'd also like it if my choice of license didn't prohibit my program from potentially being included in package managers.
I'm grateful for any advice. Thank you.
Edit
Thanks for the replies everyone. I've decided to not let my concerns overcome the most important thing of releasing the project as fully open source.
Just going to go with GPLv3 and not worry about the clones that will happen regardless of the license type, if the program becomes popular.
Thank you all for your insight and for helping me come to what I believe to be the best option.
You're viewing a single thread.
There are no open source licenses that do not allow for commercial applications. It goes against the very core of what it means to be open source.
However, what you're probably looking for is a license that prevents people from taking your code and making a commercial application without giving back. What this means is that any copy of your source code must also be open source. This is what a copyleft license does and you could look at something like the GPLv3 or the less restrictive MPLv2.
CC-NC prevents commercial use...
Not all CC licences are open source, CC-BY-NC-* aren't.
Which is why they specifically said CC-NC, right?
They replied as if to show that the comment claiming OSS can't be non commercial was wrong by giving CC-NC as an example
The BY is implicit, read my comment as CC-NC-* if you wish, the fact doesn't change.
In addition to not qualifying by most definitions of open source (as already mentioned), CC is not recommended for use in software: https://creativecommons.org/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. Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses.
Edited link for kbin/mbin users: https://creativecommons.org/faq (scroll to Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?)