问题
Normally I'm a big fan of (A)GPL and release my software licenced by it. However, this time I do not think I can allow redistribution of my software. I'm therefor looking for a licence which says:
1) Makes my software open source 2) Allows people to get/use and modify the source 3) Do not allow to redistribute the software
SimpleMachines.org uses a licence like this. However - I do not know if there is another licence like this or if I can just slap their licence on my software (which I don't think I can).
回答1:
You're basically asking somehow for legal support here. But I can't give legal support, I can only give general support. You asked for a license with these conditions:
1) Makes my software open source 2) Allows people to get/use and modify the source 3) Do not allow to redistribute the software
As long it's your software (being the author and owner of all rights), you can distribute it under whichever terms you see fit. And if it's only that 1,2,3) sentence you roughly formulated. Then only distribute your software under your terms.
However, if you are unsure about the legal meanings about your words in your terms, about what distribution is and how it happens and which rights you need to pass in any distribution regardless of your terms (your terms might violate the law and so get lost) it's highly advisable you get in contact with a lawyer that works on your behalf.
A good lawyer can explain you what you need to look for and will help you to formulate your license.
The same lawyer will be able as well to help you do the negotiations with your future licencors of your software in case it's necessary and they want to have some terms changed or specified with additional details etc..
回答2:
What you are looking for is a proprietary license limiting the distribution of your work. As an example the UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION PUBLIC LICENSE is a proprietary license limiting the distribution of your work for commercial use.
For your information, this kind of license won't qualify to be a free software or/and open source license as shown below in the different official definition.
From the definition of Free Source:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish > (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From Open Source Definition (the first rule):
- Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a >component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different >sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
回答3:
"Open source" carries with it many implied usage rights. What you want is a closed source license that provides the customer with access to the source code.
I suspect that you could track down some of the early AT&T UNIX licenses to get a model for this, or perhaps modify a license that does what you want. But as always, the best advice is to hire a lawyer.
回答4:
You may try to look at this
https://raw.github.com/Recex/Licenses/master/SharedSourceLicense/LICENSE.txt
Necessity forced me to write my own license
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5920737/open-source-non-distribution-licence