Hi, everyone
The programmers at Team 53 hit a bit of a wall when someone submitted a code licensing issue to our GitHub organization. We don’t actually have any licenses with our code, meaning it’s just under the github TOS. We like GPL v3, especially the clause about only using code on hardware with modifiable software, and the no patent claim clause, but it doesn’t have a “no commercial use” clause, which we would like. Does anyone else have suggestions for a software license with a no commercial use clause?
-Adam
2 Likes
Any reason GPL’s viral nature and limited commercial use clause aren’t enough? It essentially states that any user of GPL code is entitled to a copy of the source on demand from whoever they got their GPL dependent product from. IANAL, but these guys are, and you should definitely read up on any licence you’re considering.
Not many open source licenses appear to forbid commercial use.
You can always add an exception and additional terms to the GPL (therefore creating your own license).
1 Like
This exactly. Just add something similar
“This code and all associated files cannot be used in any commercial software, regardless of purpose.”
Feel free to be as “legally-savvy” as you’d like. You could even copy that kind of clause from another non-commercial license.
A good question to ask yourselves is what are you trying to get out of your software release? If you are just interested in showing what can be done then an unusual or super-restrictive is probably fine. But if you’d like to encourage people use your code and build things on top of it then you should use a common license and not add extra terms.
1 Like
Please don’t. These licenses are constructed the way they are for a reason, and made by lawyers who know what they’re doing. Adding a clause that restricts the usage of the software goes directly against the FSF’s Four Fundamental Freedoms:
[LIST=0]
[li] The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
[/li]> [li] The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
[/li]> [li] The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
[/li]> [li] The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
[/li]> [/LIST]
Additionally, there are a lot of loopholes in a license like what was recommended, specifically that it is self-contradictory, as the GPL explicitly permits commercial use, and that you never define what constitutes commercial use, so its ambiguous.
For example, one of the terms of the CC-BY-NC license that covers commercial use:
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
As you can see, its a little more complicated then “you can’t use it for commercial software”
1 Like
I can see where you’re coming from. Honestly, there is no way an FRC team has the lawyers to properly do this though. The clause would just be there as a signal, it’s not much legal protection.
And anyways, what kind of corporation would use FRC code? And what for?
What’s wrong with people using it in commercial code?
The whole point of something being open source is that everybody benefits, even those who make money.
You CANNOT restrict commercial use. If you do so, your project is no longer open source, and you can’t host it on github (for free).
From http://opensource.org/faq#commercial
Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?
Absolutely. All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; the Open Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell Open Source software. However, note that commercial is not the same as proprietary. If you receive software under an Open Source license, you can always use that software for commercial purposes, but that doesn't always mean you can place further restrictions on people who receive the software from you. In particular, so-called copyleft-style Open Source licenses require that when you distribute the software, you do so under the same license you received it under.
Wikipedia has a good overview of OSS license choices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses
The licenses with green in both boxes in the General Comparison table are considered to be least restrictive/most flexible/most permissive.
Most of the projects I have contributed to in the past have been Apache 2.0 licensed projects.
Making up your own license language is generally considered to be a Bad Thing.