Best License for Dingo?

ETbyrne · 08-16-2009, 09:08 PM

Hey I'm looking into changing the software license for dingo and I was hoping you guys had some suggestions on a good license. Basically these are the main things I want included in the license:

I'm not liable for damages using it
I do NOT want people to be able to sell the framework
I want people to be able to use the framework for commercial purposes
I do NOT want people to distribute derivatives/forks of the framework
I want the rights to do whatever I want with it

Village Idiot · 08-16-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETbyrne

Hey I'm looking into changing the software license for dingo and I was hoping you guys had some suggestions on a good license. Basically these are the main things I want included in the license:

I'm not liable for damages using it
I do NOT want people to be able to sell the framework
I want people to be able to use the framework for commercial purposes
I do NOT want people to distribute derivatives/forks of the framework
I want the rights to do whatever I want with it

I do not know of a pre-built license that meets your requirement. Your terms are quite unique, most free software licenses take an open source mentality while this seems like a hybrid.

What do you mean by #5? You will always have the rights to do whatever you want with it so long as you hold that copyright, that remains legally true until you forfeit it correctly. Do you mean you can change the license and all existing copies have to recomply with it? if so you can kiss any downloads goodbye, especially professional ones.

ps. When I do open source stuff I release it under the GPL license, unless I am working for profit I want my work to benefit as many people as possible.

ETbyrne · 08-17-2009, 02:05 AM

I've chosen to go the hybrid route for a number of reasons. The main one being that I want control over my hard work. Don't get me wrong I release a lot of my work for free to the public. It's just that I've put so many man hours into this I don't want to give all of my rights away just in the name of open source...

By number 5 I simply meant that I have ownership over the software (that hasn't been downloaded already, of coarse). I realize that is included with most of the licenses I've come across, but I just wanted to clarify. So, for example, if for some odd reason I wanted to sell the framework I could (not that I would).

adamdecaf · 08-17-2009, 02:38 AM

I would suggest that you create your own license and follow the MIT License format, it sounds like you won't want to write a GPL style/length license and an adaptation of the MIT License may suit your needs best.

Side Note:
I release everything under the MIT license because I have not had the time to read the GLP. Also I like how simple the MIT license is.

Village Idiot · 08-17-2009, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETbyrne

I've chosen to go the hybrid route for a number of reasons. The main one being that I want control over my hard work. Don't get me wrong I release a lot of my work for free to the public. It's just that I've put so many man hours into this I don't want to give all of my rights away just in the name of open source...

The GPL wouldn't take all your rights away, the worst it could do is let others make programs with your code and redistribute (sell) it. Your term of not selling it could hypothetically restrict me from making a site using it for a client, it would also prohibit me from making changes I want to it before making the final sale. The GPL would not restrict this. The GPL would restrict people from selling the framework itself (although the code could be used in a sold work).

I completely respect the fact that you put work into it, I wouldn't even have problem if you sold it closed source (I have no qualms with commercial for profit closed source). I'm just saying that the GPL probably won't impede your interests too much. You can also modify portions of the GPL, although there should be smaller licenses out there for you to modify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamdecaf

Side Note:
I release everything under the MIT license because I have not had the time to read the GLP. Also I like how simple the MIT license is.

MIT is too loose for me, it extends the idea of free a little too far. Users can sell your work for their profit, they also do not need to keep the license in tact like the GPL. The GPL ensures that your work benifits everyone possible without letting some almost literally steal your work and make money off of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETbyrne

By number 5 I simply meant that I have ownership over the software (that hasn't been downloaded already, of coarse). I realize that is included with most of the licenses I've come across, but I just wanted to clarify. So, for example, if for some odd reason I wanted to sell the framework I could (not that I would).

Copyright law gives you that by default.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight13

If you were to sell your framework after a lot of people are using it couldn't the person who bought your framework make the people who are using it stop? Wouldn't that be bad for anyone that was using your framework, and for your reputation as a developer?

If you sold the copyright of the exact same version, it would still depend. Work that has already been distributed probably could not be retracted like that. What could be done is all future versions would be commercial (this has been done before). Although selling it without making the fact others have it known would be fraud (at best misrepresentation if you have a good judge).

ETbyrne · 08-17-2009, 03:14 PM

So it seams that the main issue here is that preventing the user from selling the framework could cause the user to not be able use it for commercial projects. I may have to allow selling of the framework then.

The problem I have with the GPL is stated here under "The Foundations of the GPL":

* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.

I don't want people to distribute derivatives of the framework itself, but I do want them to be able to distribute applications made with the framework.

Village Idiot · 08-17-2009, 05:49 PM

You should probably write your own then.

ioan1k · 08-18-2009, 01:22 PM

There is no existing license that meets your needs ...

The best thing you can do is get a lawyer to write one up for you, it shouldn't be to expensive and will be well worth it as a self-written (assuming you have little to no education on the legality of software distribution) could result in lawsuits and other issues if loopholes existed.

Not to go off subject but I'm going to take a wild guess and say almost 90% of applications built using a framework will be for a commercial purpose, I may be slightly wrong but Non-Commerical software is going to be referred to as "self use" ...

This stop anyone from contributing outside code?

Enfernikus · 08-18-2009, 01:54 PM

You'd have to have a license in such a way that the derivative works can be sold. I've never and will never make a contribution to a project that I can't profit off. Coding is a job and as such I make sure to contribute to the things that make my job easier, and that's it.

ETbyrne · 08-18-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Not to go off subject but I'm going to take a wild guess and say almost 90% of applications built using a framework will be for a commercial purpose, I may be slightly wrong but Non-Commerical software is going to be referred to as "self use" ...

Quote:

You'd have to have a license in such a way that the derivative works can be sold. I've never and will never make a contribution to a project that I can't profit off. Coding is a job and as such I make sure to contribute to the things that make my job easier, and that's it.

I see what you mean. It's just such a fine line between selling the framework and using it for a client that it could be interpreted either way. I personally don't have the financial ability to hire a lawyer to write up a license for me, so I may just have to settle for the GPL. In the end that will probably be the best thing for the software.

I'll look into the GPL a little more and I'll make a decision on if I think that's best for Dingo.

ETbyrne · 08-18-2009, 03:19 PM

I was looking over the GPL and noticed that it basically prevents people from selling software made with it. While it says that you can sell something licensed under the GPL, people who buy that product could then redistribute it for free.

This opens the door to allow you to sell applications or modified versions of the framework to your client, but also prevents selling the framework itself from becoming a money making thing.

At this point I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Thoughts?

adamdecaf · 08-18-2009, 03:34 PM

Have you checked out the license that I'm writing, it may fit your needs.

ETbyrne · 08-22-2009, 10:44 PM

I've decided to go with the GPL because I feel it is the best fit for this software.