License thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
what other options are there besides the GPL, if one wants to go down the "open source" route?`
GNU cancer
>>>/trash/
picture unrelated
>>54527169
There's also the AGPL :)
>>54527169
WTFPL
I just wanted something that would be a good option for allowing people to use my software and look into the code, but not modify or monetize it
what are the possibilities? I'm talking about a small gaym I'll make
>>54527169
Hello corp shill
>>54527258
>but not modify or monetize it
Having either of those clauses makes it absolutely NOT free software or open source software, dumbass.
>>54527258
>not monetize it
most of them except BSD license
>not modify them
give up
>>54527370
>most of them except BSD license
Not true. There are no free or open source licenses that prohibit commercial usage, because that would, by definition, exclude it from being considered free or open source.
>>54527258
CC BY-NC-ND is the only one I can think of that fits what you want.
Keep in mind that the proper definition of "monetize" is "to use something as currency." For instance, human societies have monetized gold, silver, copper, printed paper, special kinds of seashells, and large rocks. However, we now see a tendency to use the word in another way, meaning "to use something as a basis for profit".
That usage casts the profit as primary, and the thing used to get the profit as secondary. That attitude applied to a software project is objectionable because it would lead the developers to make the program proprietary, if they conclude that making it free/libre isn't sufficiently profitable.
A productive and ethical business can make money, but if it subordinates all else to profit, it is not likely to remain ethical.
Also consider what you really want to prohibit. Do you want to allow people to make copies of your code, verbatim, and distribute them to other people? If not, then you don't need to release your software under any license at all.
Would you be okay with someone taking a snippet of your code and putting it on their blog because they found it funny or otherwise interesting? If so, the ND clause in the license will keep them from doing so.
If you want to allow certain types of copying or modification, but disallow others, hire a lawyer.
>>54527169
BSD, MIT or zlib
http://giant-penis-license.org/
What does this thread think about BSD 3-Clause license?
BSD
MIT
Apache
These are the only 3 I bother with and usually go MIT.
>>54527848
i laffed
>>54527848
Kek, this a good idea.
>>54527169
>open source
t. Cuck
>>54527574
Is this copied verbatim from FSF's rms essay repo
>>54528194
>closed source
t. Cuck
>>54527574
thank you anon
however the others were right, the part about the modificiation was autism.
GPL is a fine license, I like how it works, however I'd like to be the only one allowed to sell my program. Is there any sane license for that? Maybe a search engine with filters for licenses?
>>54530442
That goes against free software pretty hard bro.
GPL v3 is pretty copyleft bullshit heavy, that might be what you want.
>>54530494
look, as I said, I'm not trying to publish something libre.
I'd just like to be the only one that can make money from it, in my case I don't want a huge game company copy the idea (since they won't do it if they can't make money out of it)
>>54530442
CC BY-NC would prevent others from selling your code. The CC licenses are more fit for artistic/creative works than software, but it should work fine.
However, CC BY-NC also prevents other forms of "commercial" use you might be okay with. If someone for example wants to mirror the entire game on their website for free, but the website happens to have ads on it, would you allow that? How about if someone takes your game, mods the heck out of it to the point where it's barely recognisable, and wants to be rewarded for his hard work?
Unless you want to shell out the shekels for legal advice, you should decide what's the most important thing here.
>>54530531
>copy the idea
Too bad. Ideas are NOT copyrightable.
>>54530559
>reee
you know exactly I am not trying to copyright an idea, I am creating a game for fucks sake, so stop nitpicking.
Is there really no license, preferably for software that allows stuff like you mentioned, e.g. writing mods and hosting it, but making me (the creator) the only one that can sell it?
I mean, I can't be the only one
>>54530531
If you copyleft it they won't be able to take it and proprietarize it. With a permissive license, they would be able to.
>>54530595
You're concerned that game companies will "copy the idea." You can't stop them from doing that no matter what license you pick.
>>54530531
>look, as I said, I'm not trying to respect my players' freedoms
>>54530625
>mom, he is bullying me again
it's not about that. I just don't want them to copy this particular game. And I want a license to use for all my future projects, since the GPL doesn't really match my phiosophy in the sense that it's a so called "cuck license" aka a license that allows companies to monetise your project while you just sit there and watch
>>54530674
>GPL
>cuck license
Permissive licenses are the cuck licenses. OS X is the prime example of a free project being turned into a commercial botnet.
If you're so worried about companies commercialising your game, ask yourself when the last GPL'd game was sold. Companies looking to sell software tend to shy away from GPL, so the GPL will probably suit your reasons perfectly.
>>54530674
Even real life board games can't do nothing If you make diferent art for it But with the same mechanics. This is why there's so much "reskins" of board games out there. You can print them and play the original game wihout breaking any rules.
You can copyright the art. But you can't copyright mechanics
>>54530715
but will
>I
be able to sell my GPL licensed game?
>>54530734
Yes.
>>54530734
Anyone has the right to sell copies. The businesses will be more hesitant to rebrand/resell a GPL work than they would a permissively licensed project, which they will happily use with whatever license terms they wish despite your wishes (something a retarded teenager like yourself might refer to as "cucking")
>>54527169
Mozilla Public License.
It's a weak copyleft license where only changes to the software itself must be made available but it doesn't infect the source it's being used by. You're free to keep the rest of your code private.
>>54530838
>retarded teenager
sorry for not being a license scientist and asking questions about the things I don't know
you KEK
>>54531033
You're not a regarded teenager because you don't know about licensing, it's because you go throwing around the word cuck when it's not relevant to anything.
>>54531033
>you KEK
>>54531097
>>54531085
thanks for your help I guess... Although I sometimes wish the neckbeards on /g/ would show a little more love to their only friends
The gnu license gained another user today
>kek
I'd choose MIT. Apache also works.
...Hahaha, just kidding. I have no idea. What the fuck is the difference between MIT, Apache 2 and the shorter BSD license anyway?
>>54531249
>inb4 the neckbeards calling you a retarded teenager
>>54531276
Someone's a little defensive
>>54531276
Stop that. It makes my bait less attractive.
>>54531295
>le ebin psychological warfare thread
>>54531085
Dumb phoneposter.
>>54527258
>for allowing people to use my software and look into the code, but not modify or monetize it
If they can't modify it, it's not free
It also has nothing to do with commercial use
Maybe you should look for CC
>>54527169
GNU GPL v. 3
BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSDBSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSDBSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSBSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSDD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSDBSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSDBSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD BSD
>>54527169
What's the point of using a license when you host your code on github/gitlab/bitbucked but no one cares or even know you and your project exists?
>>54536439
Not putting a license is bad form.
Also, even if someone wanted to contribute they can't.
