Licensing Code

October 7, 2004 11:46 PM

Which license should I choose? [more inside]

I'm going to release a few bits of code over the weekend, which I have never done before. I want them to be able to be used non-commercially, and if anyone makes revisions they either have to publish them themselves, or give them to me to incorporate. Basically the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (I think). Can this be use for code? Are there any better choices?

posted by deaddodo to computers & internet (10 comments total)

The obvious one is the GPL, but that may or may not suit you. It's definitely worth a look, though.
posted by Nick Jordan at 12:23 AM on October 8, 2004

CC licenses aren't for code. Try GPL or MIT or something similar.
posted by mathowie at 12:30 AM on October 8, 2004

I think for what you're asking the GPL is most suitable. None of the licenses will prohibit your code from being used commercially. What the GPL does do is stipulate that if you use it commercially you have to provide access to the source code. If you modify the code you have to provide the modifications.

The BSD license is a good license but it also doesn't prohibit commercial use. In addition it allows somebody to take your code, modify it and not release the source code.
posted by substrate at 5:18 AM on October 8, 2004

What does this code do? Who would you want to use it?

If you want open-source programs to use your code, you should look at the GPL, the LGPL and the MIT X11 license.
However, given your question, I'm not sure that's your intention.
posted by reynaert at 6:04 AM on October 8, 2004

the gpl won't stop people improving the code and keeping it themselves (even if you found a licence to do that, it would be unenforceable because how would you know?). what it does do is make people release the improvements if they distribute a program that uses it (which may have been what you meant). see here.

i use the gpl. i would recommend the gpl. if you want a licence whose political motivations are connected with "sharing with the community", and don't have any other special conditions then, imho, it's a good choice.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:19 AM on October 8, 2004

CC licenses aren't for code.

Could you expand on that, please?
posted by majcher at 10:03 AM on October 8, 2004

Could you expand on that, please?

CC FAQ
posted by sad_otter at 11:56 AM on October 8, 2004

I'd suggest having the fortitude to simply release it to the public domain. If you're going to give something away, give it away, dammit.

If it's just a "few bits of code" then any value you get out of retaining any kind of control over it is going to be very small, and the likelihood that you'll actually try to enforce the license smaller still.
posted by kindall at 4:19 PM on October 8, 2004

I'd suggest having the fortitude to simply release it to the public domain. If you're going to give something away, give it away, dammit.

Of course, if you do this, it will shortly end up co-opted by a commercial company, somewhat improved, and you, the author, will get to pay $1,000 for a product that is 90% your code.

Some examples: OS X, microsoft windows network utilities, most of the BSDs, etc, etc. The list could go on but I tire of license arguing.

Examples of where the GPL has saved software from commercial death: The cromwell flashBIOS. Yes, I am the one who hacked back in the support for all chips. I could only do that because the GPL forced the commercial vendors hand to release the (molested, but mostly intact) code to the public again.

Safe to say I usually ignore public domain software as it ends up unsupported after the original authors get disheartened when they have to buy back updates to their code at a hefty price.

But hey, your code, do as you wish.
posted by shepd at 6:21 PM on October 8, 2004

Of course, if you do this, it will shortly end up co-opted by a commercial company, somewhat improved, and you, the author, will get to pay $1,000 for a product that is 90% your code.

Well, possibly. That's what giving away your code freely means: people are free to do with it what they want. That's why I said it requires fortitude.

If it was worth $1000 a pop with only a little more work, though, he wouldn't be thinking about giving it away in the first place. He'd be selling it at $1000 a pop, after doing a little more work on it.
posted by kindall at 4:31 PM on October 18, 2004