Faves for this Web page
- royleban - Sep 27 2008 | software, license, legal, open source
Summary of a number of common open source licenses (part 1 was a decision tree)
Quoted: Who said computers have to be all work and no play? Software developer and author Ed Burnette shares his unique view of industry trends, technologies, and personalities.
Add a Fave for this Web page
- What happens when I press Publish?
- Your Fave for this Web page gets shared with the Faves community. You can access it at any time by selecting "My Faves" from the menu above.
- Why do you ask for my email address?
- We use your email address to create an account, so you can easily find your Fave again at a later time.
Related Content from Around Faves
legal
-
If you are looking for a job that combines medicine with the law, you have two basic routes you can take. Either you can choose medical jobs that deal directly with law enforcement, or you can choose a job in law that deals directly with medicine. The ...
3 FaversViewed: 1 Time - websurfer5 - Jun 29 20093 Favers
- websurfer5 - Jun 27 20096 FaversViewed: 1 Time
news
-
Whoa, this is pretty crazy!
0 FaversViewed: 16 TimesQuoted: In our absurdly terrorism-fearing World, and after Christmas's near tragedy, it was inevitable: Full-body scanning tech will be coming to an airport near (or not so near) you. But what are these machines, and will they invade your privacy?
- shiwani - 4 days ago0 FaversViewed: 5 Times
- shiwani - 5 days ago0 FaversViewed: 17 Times
It doesn't seem that there is a popular "non-commercial" license being used by anyone. This is a bit surprising to me. Suppose you create some really cool software, and you'd like to publicize it and release for "free" for people to use on their own. But if Big Company picks it up and incorporates into a product they make for sale, you'd like to have the opportunity to negotiate a royalty arrangement with them.
I don't see any standard license that allows for this. I've starting using the MIT license (very liberal) BUT with the caveat that uses are "non-commercial".
I like the MIT license. It doesn't prevent commercial use or attempt to turn any software that uses the work into open source software.
The MIT License is interesting in that it is very short -- the license, in its entirety, is usually included in source code. This means that it's very easy to modify. Take where it says the following:
"... subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
and just add another condition:
"The original author will be sent a chocolate bar upon any public release of a modified version of the Software."
I've done this for something I haven't released yet (well, not exactly -- it wasn't a chocolate bar).
I think you could also easily modify for non-commercial use. Here's a take on that:
Modified MIT License
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software for non-commercial purposes without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sublicense copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
COMMERCIAL LICENSES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE BY CONTACTING <copyright holders>
I actually modified the MIT License on my go2.me site. I made it "non-commercial" since I'm patenting the scoring algorithm. I will be offering a commercial license separately.