What License do I want to use?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Ive made some small windows programs, and am thinking of uploading them to Github for if someone elsw would want to use the things ive made.
I know I want to have the proper licensing to make sure my programs are still mine, even if i let others use them.

I want to inclue the scorce code if someone else wants to modify those programs themselves, so they can be more fine tuned to their needs, the built exe of that file, and possibly other forms of executables depending on if I have another built form of executable.
Whats the best form of license for this?

[badlou101]

This should help you. https://choosealicense.com/

 

[pythonmegapixel]

I am not a legal expert. Please do not construe my posts as such.

 

The most important question is whether you want people to be required to publish the source code to their modified versions? If so, GNU GPL. If not, something like the Apache License.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, pythonmegapixel said:

I am not a legal expert. Please do not construe my posts as such.

 

The most important question is whether you want people to be required to publish the source code to their modified versions? If so, GNU GPL. If not, something like the Apache License.

Actually, no. I want it to be modifiable, but people cant redistribute the original, but can distribute modified versions.

[badlou101]

12 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Actually, no. I want it to be modifiable, but people cant redistribute the original, but can distribute modified versions.

No FOSS license that I know of is like that.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 minutes ago, badlou101 said:

No FOSS license that I know of is like that.

hmm...  so its mostly just can modify and distribute or cant?

[Eigenvektor]

18 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Actually, no. I want it to be modifiable, but people cant redistribute the original, but can distribute modified versions.

If the original is open source anyway, why do you feel the need to restrict others from hosting the source code as well? At most it would make sense to prevent others from claiming it as their own work. I think something like the Apache license should work, since it requires that original copyright notices remain intact.

 

The way companies like Mozilla do it: Their code is open source, but the name, icon etc. are trademarked. This way others can't distribute modified versions claiming to be an official version (possibly tarnishing the brand). But nothing stops someone from hosting/distributing their source code (whether modified or unmodified)

[Chris Pratt]

1 minute ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

hmm...  so its mostly just can modify and distribute or cant?

I'm not aware of any license that restrains the ability to simply mirror the original source. People would run afoul of this constantly just on accident. I can't count the number of times I forked a project on GitHub because I was thinking of doing something with it, and just never did.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

If the original is open source anyway, why do you feel the need to restrict others from hosting the source code as well? At most it would make sense to prevent others from claiming it as their own work. I think something like the Apache license should work, since it requires that original copyright notices remain intact.

 

The way companies like Mozilla do it: Their code is open source, but the name, icon etc. are trademarked. This way others can't distribute modified versions claiming to be an official version (possibly tarnishing the brand). But nothing stops someone from hosting their source code.

Oh, ok. 

I just want to make sure that things I've made are still known to be mine, im used to the internet claiming things are their ow.

[pythonmegapixel]

22 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Actually, no. I want it to be modifiable, but people cant redistribute the original, but can distribute modified versions.

That would be quite difficult to implement because what counts as a modification? I'm assuming you wouldn't be too happy if I changed your indentation from tabs to spaces and then redistributed that as a "modified version" - but technically I've changed the source so you could argue it's modified.

[Eigenvektor]

Just now, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Oh, ok. 

I just want to make sure that things I've made are still known to be mine, im used to the internet claiming things are their ow.

Nothing really stops people from doing this of course, but most licenses do require that original copyright notices remain intact, so it would technically be a license violation to remove your name from the source code.

 

I've published stuff under the Apache License 2.0 before. It never really occurred to me that others might "steal" it, because it's open source anyway. I doubt many people feel the need to erase my name and claim it as their work. But ultimately it doesn't really matter. I published the code in the hope that it is useful to others, not because I want my name to be out there.

[Sauron]

32 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

but people cant redistribute the original, but can distribute modified versions.

that doesn't make a lot of sense, I could just add a newline in the code and redistribute it...

[wasab]

I would go with MIT for any projects I don't ever intend to monetize and profit from. 

[Alexeygridnev1993]

Every existing license requires the use of your name. So, if someone just steals your code and claims it's theirs, you can sue them and win the case. The real question is whether you want the derivatives of your code to remain open source or if you don't care (but even in the latter case,  anyone using your code even in proprietary projects will have to mention your name in the copyrights section). If the former, than GPL. If the latter, than FreeBSD, MIT, or whatever other permissive licence.

[Alexeygridnev1993]

On 7/7/2021 at 8:57 PM, James Evens said:

Maybe some CC-BY-SA?

Don't forbid the redistribution but have to give attribution.

 

If you don't like commercial usage add a NC.

Is CC applicable to software though? Normally, CC is used for works of art (including logos and graphic elements which can be used in software) rather than to software itself.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, Alexeygridnev1993 said:

Is CC applicable to software though? Normally, CC is used for works of art (including logos and graphic elements which can be used in software) rather than to software itself.

What if it's a game (not what I made but still)? Usually those themselves are works of art, no just their art.

[Alexeygridnev1993]

9 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

What if it's a game (not what I made but still)? Usually those themselves are works of art, no just their art.

Just an example of how that could be done in practice. John Carmack opensourced all his game engines up to Doom 3, but all the game assets remain property of ID software. So, you can make a new game based on his engine but you have to bring different assets (either yours or the ones you have the right to use).

[wanderingfool2]

I've always been a fan of the MIT license....as it was created to be concise and easy to read/understand.  It allows for others to modify your code, or even distribute programs without releasing source code.

 

It also allows you to tack on a few things if you so chose to (like making it explicitly clear all copyright notices crediting you are to be maintained)

[pythonmegapixel]

On 7/10/2021 at 6:42 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

I've always been a fan of the MIT license....as it was created to be concise and easy to read/understand.  It allows for others to modify your code, or even distribute programs without releasing source code.

That's not necessarily what you want though. If I put effort into developing something for the benefit of 'the community' as a whole, the last thing I want is some huge corporation taking it, modifying it and profiting from their modifications with those modifications being impossible to 

 

My general line of thinking is that if it's just a small simple thing which I just bodge together on a whim, it gets the modified 3-clause BSD license, which is quite similar to MIT. If it's something that required me some planning and which I plan to properly develop and improve into the future, it gets the GPL.

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

That's not necessarily what you want though. If I put effort into developing something for the benefit of 'the community' as a whole, the last thing I want is some huge corporation taking it, modifying it and profiting from their modifications with those modifications being impossible to 

 

My general line of thinking is that if it's just a small simple thing which I just bodge together on a whim, it gets the modified 3-clause BSD license, which is quite similar to MIT. If it's something that required me some planning and which I plan to properly develop and improve into the future, it gets the GPL.

I've never been a fan of requiring the release of source code.  While I do understand where people are coming from with it, I also view it as a way of hindering real world production that could benefit users.  An example being emulators on consoles...I'm betting that you could see PS2 and PS1 emulators on the PS4 if it wasn't for GPL.

 

Most of my releases are in MIT.

[12345678]

On 7/7/2021 at 8:12 PM, badlou101 said:

This should help you. https://choosealicense.com/

 

quick question:

there is no license or something that works the same that limits the commercial use/distribution?

https://choosealicense.com/appendix/