Is it that unusual? To prevent people from bundling up my work and selling it when my intention is to have it available for free? I guess if it is free from me, then why would anyone pay for it? I guess that's the thinking?
On 03/05/2012 10:32 AM, Ted Roche wrote: > > I was all set to recommend the MIT license, but then I saw that the #3 > requirement is that the licensee CAN'T sell their updated version of > the code. This is a pretty unusual requirement for Open Source and, in > fact, may disqualify it altogether for an Open Source license. > > The focus of most open source licenses is that the source remains > open, and not an economic license that restricts or permits specific > business models. > > A GPL license, for example, allows people to resell what they have > created, but they are REQUIRED to publish the code with the changes > they make. For example, Linksys uses a hacked version of the Linux > kernel and various hardware drivers to run their routers, but they > HAVE TO publish the source code they use. This is a huge win, since > developers can take the changes Linksys made back into their > development, or much more likely, point out bugs in the Linksys work > :) > > There are a lot of licenses listed on the Open Source page, and I'd > suggest you read through them and see if there's one that meets your > needs. If not, perhaps you'll want to reconsider your requirements. > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
