5

Normally I'm a big fan of (A)GPL and release my software licenced by it. However, this time I do not think I can allow redistribution of my software. I'm therefor looking for a licence which says:

1) Makes my software open source 2) Allows people to get/use and modify the source 3) Do not allow to redistribute the software

SimpleMachines.org uses a licence like this. However - I do not know if there is another licence like this or if I can just slap their licence on my software (which I don't think I can).

Martin Hansen
  • 571
  • 4
  • 8
  • 14

4 Answers4

6

What you are looking for is a proprietary license limiting the distribution of your work. As an example the UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION PUBLIC LICENSE is a proprietary license limiting the distribution of your work for commercial use.

For your information, this kind of license won't qualify to be a free software or/and open source license as shown below in the different official definition.

From the definition of Free Source:

  • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish > (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  • 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.

From Open Source Definition (the first rule):

  1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a >component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different >sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Alexandre Dulaunoy
  • 130
  • 3
  • Thank you. I'll take a look at it. Let's not make this a debate about terminology but I just want to point out that I (as the FSF do) distinguish between "open source" and "free software". I want a licence which is "open source" but NOT "free software". – Martin Hansen May 07 '11 at 12:33
  • You're welcome. But if you want to restrict the distribution of your work (one of your right as an author), it's not even an "open source" license as defined by the OSI (first rule). In your case, it will be just another proprietary license. – Alexandre Dulaunoy May 07 '11 at 12:37
  • **Open Source** only means that the customer can take a look in the source. Generally spoken Open Source must not be free software at all. And especially in this question, I think that's exactly what Marin asks for: A license that allows access to the source, even do some modifications to it, but derivates are not allowed to be redistributed. The OSI has the term in it's name, but they have not invented it. Perhaps they have a clarifcation about this on their website as well. – hakre May 07 '11 at 19:13
  • 1
    In order to avoid any confusion with the OSI definition (largely used), I would advise to call it something like "accessible source code without redistribution" license instead of "open source". IMHO. – Alexandre Dulaunoy May 08 '11 at 10:40
  • 1
    With that premise/context I'm perfectly with you. I just think that the term is much more broadly used in communication and especially in the meaning of the question asked. But as written, that was just a comment in addition to the context you provided. And indeed it looks like that Martin is looking for an (existing) license text for such a proprietary software in open source form so your answer looks infact very well to me. I already gave you +1 so I can't do it again. – hakre May 08 '11 at 21:33
  • In fact, the term 'open source' was coined to make the philosophical distinction from the existing term 'free software', with the free redistribution term set out from day one. Given that it's part of the trademark of the Open Source initiative, precisely to protect that definition, I would be hesitant to try to present 'source available' as 'open source'. – Phil Miller May 16 '12 at 21:27
5

"Open source" carries with it many implied usage rights. What you want is a closed source license that provides the customer with access to the source code.

I suspect that you could track down some of the early AT&T UNIX licenses to get a model for this, or perhaps modify a license that does what you want. But as always, the best advice is to hire a lawyer.

Anon
  • 2,328
  • 12
  • 7
  • `Makes my software open source` - Martin Hansen asked explicitly for this, otherwise this would not make any sense: `2) Allows people to get/use and modify the source`. – hakre May 07 '11 at 19:10
  • 1
    @hakre - People ask for a lot of things around here that don't make any sense. And other people attach their own definitions to words and say those are the correct ones. But thanks for the downvote all the same. – Anon May 07 '11 at 19:26
1

You may try to look at this

https://raw.github.com/Recex/Licenses/master/SharedSourceLicense/LICENSE.txt

Necessity forced me to write my own license

Championswimmer
  • 11
  • 1
1

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:

1) Makes my software open source 2) Allows people to get/use and modify the source 3) Do not allow to redistribute the software

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..

hakre
  • 193,403
  • 52
  • 435
  • 836