Comments on: Licensing Code

Question: Licensing Code

deaddodo — Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:46:42 -0800

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?

By: Nick Jordan

Nick Jordan — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:23:18 -0800

The obvious one is the GPL, but that may or may not suit you. It's definitely worth a look, though.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:30:35 -0800

CC licenses aren't for code. Try GPL or MIT or something similar.

By: substrate

substrate — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:18:21 -0800

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.

By: reynaert

reynaert — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:04:04 -0800

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.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:19:32 -0800

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.

By: majcher

majcher — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:03:04 -0800

CC licenses aren't for code.

Could you expand on that, please?

By: sad_otter

sad_otter — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:56:55 -0800

Could you expand on that, please?

CC FAQ

By: kindall

kindall — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:19:52 -0800

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.

By: shepd

shepd — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:21:56 -0800

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.

By: kindall

kindall — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:31:51 -0800

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.