License to disallow distribution in closed source software, but allow exceptions made by owner?On what grounds can companies bring open source projects into closed source?How can I get benefits priority out of my open source code?How did memtest86 transition from GPL to closed-source?Can I use a library under the Cecill-B licence in my commercial closed-source app?Can we keep the components of a derivative work open source, but allow the work as a whole to be closed?Licensing and publicly hosting commercial software, but free for non-profit or personal useOpen Source License that requires commercial users to contributeCan you change GPLv2 licensed software, but keep your new source closed?A question about closed-source software with GNU GSL for commercial and free-to-use casesHow to license scientific software to be open while protecting against misuse?
Reducing vertical space in stackrel
Phrase for the opposite of "foolproof"
how to sum variables from file in bash
How come there are so many candidates for the 2020 Democratic party presidential nomination?
How to make a pipeline wait for end-of-file or stop after an error?
Examples of non trivial equivalence relations , I mean equivalence relations without the expression " same ... as" in their definition?
US visa is under administrative processing, I need the passport back ASAP
Mac Pro install disk keeps ejecting itself
Will a top journal at least read my introduction?
How do I reattach a shelf to the wall when it ripped out of the wall?
How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?
Why other Westeros houses don't use wildfire?
Why isn't the definition of absolute value applied when squaring a radical containing a variable?
What does KSP mean?
Why was the Spitfire's elliptical wing almost uncopied by other aircraft of World War 2?
Is there any limitation with Arduino Nano serial communication distance?
How can I practically buy stocks?
What language was spoken in East Asia before Proto-Turkic?
Why do games have consumables?
How to get a plain text file version of a CP/M .BAS (M-BASIC) program?
The Defining Moment
What are the potential pitfalls when using metals as a currency?
With a Canadian student visa, can I spend a night at Vancouver before continuing to Toronto?
Sci fi novel series with instant travel between planets through gates. A river runs through the gates
License to disallow distribution in closed source software, but allow exceptions made by owner?
On what grounds can companies bring open source projects into closed source?How can I get benefits priority out of my open source code?How did memtest86 transition from GPL to closed-source?Can I use a library under the Cecill-B licence in my commercial closed-source app?Can we keep the components of a derivative work open source, but allow the work as a whole to be closed?Licensing and publicly hosting commercial software, but free for non-profit or personal useOpen Source License that requires commercial users to contributeCan you change GPLv2 licensed software, but keep your new source closed?A question about closed-source software with GNU GSL for commercial and free-to-use casesHow to license scientific software to be open while protecting against misuse?
Is there a license (similar to the GNU v3 software license) that forbids the usage of an open-source software in closed-source software, but except parties that receive approval by the original owner (NOT other contributors) to do so?
Imagine I write an open-source library, and I am the original owner/creator, and I only want to allow it to be used in open-source projects. But, I (and only I, without consent of other contributors) can allow a company to use the open-source library in their closed-source software in exchange for a fee or other advantages.
Another situation could be when I write an open-source library that I don't want to be distributed in closed-source software, except for closed-source software that I write myself in order to gain an income based on my open-source library, but not close the library to other people that want to create a new open-source project using my library.
license-recommendation distribution closed-source redistribution license
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
add a comment |
Is there a license (similar to the GNU v3 software license) that forbids the usage of an open-source software in closed-source software, but except parties that receive approval by the original owner (NOT other contributors) to do so?
Imagine I write an open-source library, and I am the original owner/creator, and I only want to allow it to be used in open-source projects. But, I (and only I, without consent of other contributors) can allow a company to use the open-source library in their closed-source software in exchange for a fee or other advantages.
Another situation could be when I write an open-source library that I don't want to be distributed in closed-source software, except for closed-source software that I write myself in order to gain an income based on my open-source library, but not close the library to other people that want to create a new open-source project using my library.
license-recommendation distribution closed-source redistribution license
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
add a comment |
Is there a license (similar to the GNU v3 software license) that forbids the usage of an open-source software in closed-source software, but except parties that receive approval by the original owner (NOT other contributors) to do so?
Imagine I write an open-source library, and I am the original owner/creator, and I only want to allow it to be used in open-source projects. But, I (and only I, without consent of other contributors) can allow a company to use the open-source library in their closed-source software in exchange for a fee or other advantages.
Another situation could be when I write an open-source library that I don't want to be distributed in closed-source software, except for closed-source software that I write myself in order to gain an income based on my open-source library, but not close the library to other people that want to create a new open-source project using my library.
license-recommendation distribution closed-source redistribution license
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
Is there a license (similar to the GNU v3 software license) that forbids the usage of an open-source software in closed-source software, but except parties that receive approval by the original owner (NOT other contributors) to do so?
Imagine I write an open-source library, and I am the original owner/creator, and I only want to allow it to be used in open-source projects. But, I (and only I, without consent of other contributors) can allow a company to use the open-source library in their closed-source software in exchange for a fee or other advantages.
Another situation could be when I write an open-source library that I don't want to be distributed in closed-source software, except for closed-source software that I write myself in order to gain an income based on my open-source library, but not close the library to other people that want to create a new open-source project using my library.
license-recommendation distribution closed-source redistribution license
license-recommendation distribution closed-source redistribution license
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
asked Apr 20 at 12:31
TitulumTitulum
1134
1134
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The practice of selling exceptions to the GPL is perfectly commonplace, but you must either be the sole copyright holder, or else have prior permission from all other copyright holders. In order to achieve the latter, you must have other contributors agree to a contributor licensing agreement (CLA) that allows you, specifically, to offer that contributor's copyrighted work under different terms in the future. In order words, it is important that you not receive contributors' work under (exclusively) GPL copyleft terms, but under a much more permissive arrangement in which each contributor gives you latitude to do as you please with their contribution.
You may wish to search for CLA templates that suit your needs. (I cannot recommend one in particular.)
In order for a contributor to agree to such terms, it is either the case that
the contributor doesn't care about GPL copyleft terms and would happily allow anyone to use their work under permissive terms, or
the contributor has some expectations about how they trust you to exercise this privilege over their work. In this case, be forthright with contributors about how you plan you use their contributions. Surprising your contributors by doing something they did not expect, e.g., selling their contributions to a company for your own personal profit, is not likely to garner goodwill for yourself, nor attract future contributors to your project. Therefore, simply be upfront about your intent to do so, and you can still get contributions from anyone for whom that strategy is not a problem.
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
I know that the website choosealicense.com exists, but is are there any websites that offer similar functionality where you check a series of options and then the website will return to you the most relevant license?
– Titulum
Apr 20 at 13:50
I'd add that one way (and the typical way I know of, but your experience might differ) to hand out a non-GPL version is to simply use another license for that one contract partner. Feel free to incorporate or not as you see fit.
– Frank Hopkins
Apr 20 at 16:51
1
This practice is called "dual licensing" or "multi licensing" and googling that will take you to some pages describing how it works and how to do it.
– davidbak
Apr 20 at 17:52
1
The Harmony Agreements site offers some CLA templates that seem to be well-regarded, as far as a CLA can be well-regarded.
– amon
Apr 21 at 7:57
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8211%2flicense-to-disallow-distribution-in-closed-source-software-but-allow-exceptions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The practice of selling exceptions to the GPL is perfectly commonplace, but you must either be the sole copyright holder, or else have prior permission from all other copyright holders. In order to achieve the latter, you must have other contributors agree to a contributor licensing agreement (CLA) that allows you, specifically, to offer that contributor's copyrighted work under different terms in the future. In order words, it is important that you not receive contributors' work under (exclusively) GPL copyleft terms, but under a much more permissive arrangement in which each contributor gives you latitude to do as you please with their contribution.
You may wish to search for CLA templates that suit your needs. (I cannot recommend one in particular.)
In order for a contributor to agree to such terms, it is either the case that
the contributor doesn't care about GPL copyleft terms and would happily allow anyone to use their work under permissive terms, or
the contributor has some expectations about how they trust you to exercise this privilege over their work. In this case, be forthright with contributors about how you plan you use their contributions. Surprising your contributors by doing something they did not expect, e.g., selling their contributions to a company for your own personal profit, is not likely to garner goodwill for yourself, nor attract future contributors to your project. Therefore, simply be upfront about your intent to do so, and you can still get contributions from anyone for whom that strategy is not a problem.
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
I know that the website choosealicense.com exists, but is are there any websites that offer similar functionality where you check a series of options and then the website will return to you the most relevant license?
– Titulum
Apr 20 at 13:50
I'd add that one way (and the typical way I know of, but your experience might differ) to hand out a non-GPL version is to simply use another license for that one contract partner. Feel free to incorporate or not as you see fit.
– Frank Hopkins
Apr 20 at 16:51
1
This practice is called "dual licensing" or "multi licensing" and googling that will take you to some pages describing how it works and how to do it.
– davidbak
Apr 20 at 17:52
1
The Harmony Agreements site offers some CLA templates that seem to be well-regarded, as far as a CLA can be well-regarded.
– amon
Apr 21 at 7:57
add a comment |
The practice of selling exceptions to the GPL is perfectly commonplace, but you must either be the sole copyright holder, or else have prior permission from all other copyright holders. In order to achieve the latter, you must have other contributors agree to a contributor licensing agreement (CLA) that allows you, specifically, to offer that contributor's copyrighted work under different terms in the future. In order words, it is important that you not receive contributors' work under (exclusively) GPL copyleft terms, but under a much more permissive arrangement in which each contributor gives you latitude to do as you please with their contribution.
You may wish to search for CLA templates that suit your needs. (I cannot recommend one in particular.)
In order for a contributor to agree to such terms, it is either the case that
the contributor doesn't care about GPL copyleft terms and would happily allow anyone to use their work under permissive terms, or
the contributor has some expectations about how they trust you to exercise this privilege over their work. In this case, be forthright with contributors about how you plan you use their contributions. Surprising your contributors by doing something they did not expect, e.g., selling their contributions to a company for your own personal profit, is not likely to garner goodwill for yourself, nor attract future contributors to your project. Therefore, simply be upfront about your intent to do so, and you can still get contributions from anyone for whom that strategy is not a problem.
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
I know that the website choosealicense.com exists, but is are there any websites that offer similar functionality where you check a series of options and then the website will return to you the most relevant license?
– Titulum
Apr 20 at 13:50
I'd add that one way (and the typical way I know of, but your experience might differ) to hand out a non-GPL version is to simply use another license for that one contract partner. Feel free to incorporate or not as you see fit.
– Frank Hopkins
Apr 20 at 16:51
1
This practice is called "dual licensing" or "multi licensing" and googling that will take you to some pages describing how it works and how to do it.
– davidbak
Apr 20 at 17:52
1
The Harmony Agreements site offers some CLA templates that seem to be well-regarded, as far as a CLA can be well-regarded.
– amon
Apr 21 at 7:57
add a comment |
The practice of selling exceptions to the GPL is perfectly commonplace, but you must either be the sole copyright holder, or else have prior permission from all other copyright holders. In order to achieve the latter, you must have other contributors agree to a contributor licensing agreement (CLA) that allows you, specifically, to offer that contributor's copyrighted work under different terms in the future. In order words, it is important that you not receive contributors' work under (exclusively) GPL copyleft terms, but under a much more permissive arrangement in which each contributor gives you latitude to do as you please with their contribution.
You may wish to search for CLA templates that suit your needs. (I cannot recommend one in particular.)
In order for a contributor to agree to such terms, it is either the case that
the contributor doesn't care about GPL copyleft terms and would happily allow anyone to use their work under permissive terms, or
the contributor has some expectations about how they trust you to exercise this privilege over their work. In this case, be forthright with contributors about how you plan you use their contributions. Surprising your contributors by doing something they did not expect, e.g., selling their contributions to a company for your own personal profit, is not likely to garner goodwill for yourself, nor attract future contributors to your project. Therefore, simply be upfront about your intent to do so, and you can still get contributions from anyone for whom that strategy is not a problem.
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
The practice of selling exceptions to the GPL is perfectly commonplace, but you must either be the sole copyright holder, or else have prior permission from all other copyright holders. In order to achieve the latter, you must have other contributors agree to a contributor licensing agreement (CLA) that allows you, specifically, to offer that contributor's copyrighted work under different terms in the future. In order words, it is important that you not receive contributors' work under (exclusively) GPL copyleft terms, but under a much more permissive arrangement in which each contributor gives you latitude to do as you please with their contribution.
You may wish to search for CLA templates that suit your needs. (I cannot recommend one in particular.)
In order for a contributor to agree to such terms, it is either the case that
the contributor doesn't care about GPL copyleft terms and would happily allow anyone to use their work under permissive terms, or
the contributor has some expectations about how they trust you to exercise this privilege over their work. In this case, be forthright with contributors about how you plan you use their contributions. Surprising your contributors by doing something they did not expect, e.g., selling their contributions to a company for your own personal profit, is not likely to garner goodwill for yourself, nor attract future contributors to your project. Therefore, simply be upfront about your intent to do so, and you can still get contributions from anyone for whom that strategy is not a problem.
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
edited Apr 20 at 13:34
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
answered Apr 20 at 13:28
apsillers♦apsillers
16.6k12954
16.6k12954
I know that the website choosealicense.com exists, but is are there any websites that offer similar functionality where you check a series of options and then the website will return to you the most relevant license?
– Titulum
Apr 20 at 13:50
I'd add that one way (and the typical way I know of, but your experience might differ) to hand out a non-GPL version is to simply use another license for that one contract partner. Feel free to incorporate or not as you see fit.
– Frank Hopkins
Apr 20 at 16:51
1
This practice is called "dual licensing" or "multi licensing" and googling that will take you to some pages describing how it works and how to do it.
– davidbak
Apr 20 at 17:52
1
The Harmony Agreements site offers some CLA templates that seem to be well-regarded, as far as a CLA can be well-regarded.
– amon
Apr 21 at 7:57
add a comment |
I know that the website choosealicense.com exists, but is are there any websites that offer similar functionality where you check a series of options and then the website will return to you the most relevant license?
– Titulum
Apr 20 at 13:50
I'd add that one way (and the typical way I know of, but your experience might differ) to hand out a non-GPL version is to simply use another license for that one contract partner. Feel free to incorporate or not as you see fit.
– Frank Hopkins
Apr 20 at 16:51
1
This practice is called "dual licensing" or "multi licensing" and googling that will take you to some pages describing how it works and how to do it.
– davidbak
Apr 20 at 17:52
1
The Harmony Agreements site offers some CLA templates that seem to be well-regarded, as far as a CLA can be well-regarded.
– amon
Apr 21 at 7:57
I know that the website choosealicense.com exists, but is are there any websites that offer similar functionality where you check a series of options and then the website will return to you the most relevant license?
– Titulum
Apr 20 at 13:50
I know that the website choosealicense.com exists, but is are there any websites that offer similar functionality where you check a series of options and then the website will return to you the most relevant license?
– Titulum
Apr 20 at 13:50
I'd add that one way (and the typical way I know of, but your experience might differ) to hand out a non-GPL version is to simply use another license for that one contract partner. Feel free to incorporate or not as you see fit.
– Frank Hopkins
Apr 20 at 16:51
I'd add that one way (and the typical way I know of, but your experience might differ) to hand out a non-GPL version is to simply use another license for that one contract partner. Feel free to incorporate or not as you see fit.
– Frank Hopkins
Apr 20 at 16:51
1
1
This practice is called "dual licensing" or "multi licensing" and googling that will take you to some pages describing how it works and how to do it.
– davidbak
Apr 20 at 17:52
This practice is called "dual licensing" or "multi licensing" and googling that will take you to some pages describing how it works and how to do it.
– davidbak
Apr 20 at 17:52
1
1
The Harmony Agreements site offers some CLA templates that seem to be well-regarded, as far as a CLA can be well-regarded.
– amon
Apr 21 at 7:57
The Harmony Agreements site offers some CLA templates that seem to be well-regarded, as far as a CLA can be well-regarded.
– amon
Apr 21 at 7:57
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8211%2flicense-to-disallow-distribution-in-closed-source-software-but-allow-exceptions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
