You're basically asking somehow for legal support here. But I can't give legal support, I can only give general support. You asked for a license with these conditions:. As long it's your software being the author and owner of all rights , you can distribute it under whichever terms you see fit. And if it's only that 1,2,3 sentence you roughly formulated.
Then only distribute your software under your terms. However, if you are unsure about the legal meanings about your words in your terms, about what distribution is and how it happens and which rights you need to pass in any distribution regardless of your terms your terms might violate the law and so get lost it's highly advisable you get in contact with a lawyer that works on your behalf.
A good lawyer can explain you what you need to look for and will help you to formulate your license. The same lawyer will be able as well to help you do the negotiations with your future licencors of your software in case it's necessary and they want to have some terms changed or specified with additional details etc.. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.
Create a free Team What is Teams? Collectives on Stack Overflow. Learn more. Open Source non distribution licence [closed] Ask Question. Asked 10 years, 8 months ago.
Active 8 years, 7 months ago. Viewed 4k times. Martin Hansen Martin Hansen 4 4 gold badges 8 8 silver badges 14 14 bronze badges. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. From the definition of Free Source : The freedom to run the program, for any purpose freedom 0. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Graduate Work Non-thesis. Undergraduate Work. Your Submission is the material described below, and includes the abstract, associated descriptive information, and any other information you have submitted to cIRcle in association with that material.
If you have registered for a cIRcle account, please provide the same email address used for your cIRcle login. Provide the email address of anyone else who should receive a copy of this form. Separate multiple email addresses with a comma. Please include the title, author s , citation, DOI, etc.
If not submitting the final publisher's version of the work, please indicate if the items are preprints or postprints. If applicable, please indicate the date s for embargo period expiry and copyright owner s. Indicate the affiliation s for the author s of the work e. If, at any time hereafter, you learn that any of the foregoing statements are inaccurate, you must contact cIRcle immediately. This License does not affect the ownership of copyright—you maintain whatever rights you have in the Submission.
If you want them legally prohibited from redistributing it, well, copyright law already does that — you don't need a special licence, just the usual copyright notice. Of course you can add further text to clarify things if you want, but unless you are an expert you run the risk of accidentally changing the terms in ways you didn't want. As usual, consult an actual lawyer for actual legal advice. Edit: The FSF have just posted a page specifically for novice licence choosers: How to choose a license for your own work.
What you try to achieve looks a bit contradictory to me. Just writing so because it might help you to find where you want to draw the line:. I think learning from code is generally allowed if it's available in public - regardless under which license.
But as a simplification of my opinion, you can not restrict the right of others to learn. So you don't need to explicitly give that right as the public already got it or from the other side: it has been already given and you can not restrict that higher right. That's the part I stumbled over: Do you want to allow others to copy over parts which size? I just ask because you write as well:. Which would contradict a bit to the point that you as well want to allow them to copy the program in part.
Basically this comes down to distribution: Do you want to allow others to make use of your code but only for their own private programs? If they make use of your code they are not allowed to redistribute anything that has been in contact with your code at all.
I don't know of a license that has such terms from the top of my mind but I can imagine that something like that has already been done.
However it looks as well like you want to reserve yourself the right to commercially control the software so I assume you have something worth to protect. You should contact a lawyer on your behalf to discuss the detailed needs you have, e. Means you can't call it Open Source. Because of this, you'll find most open source licenses like the AGPL someone else suggested unsuitable. I suggest you drop that requirement. In fact, I suggest you stop trying to craft a overly protective license.
A far bigger problem for anyone is getting interest for their thing, not license terms. Also, look at Dual Licensing which will allow you to release the code as open source and sell it privately. The hard part of that is that if anyone submits a patch, they have to agree to allow you to include it in your not-open-source-for-sale version.
Check the first paragraph of your own question. If it will not be sold, just use AGPLv3 which will make it pretty much un-usable for any major corporations or profit driven that uses closed source. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Asked 10 years, 7 months ago. Active 3 years, 6 months ago. Viewed 17k times.
Improve this question. Programmers's FAQ explicitly states "Software law" as a topic. Can you clarify what people can and can't do? How would you define a "bit" that I can use in my own app if you want to protect the app as a whole from being redistributed? But than it isn't open source
0コメント