What licens should I chose?

[FriedMule]

This is not about hardware but software, but it is still open source, I am looking for the right license to put it under.

My goal is to give as great freedom for non-commercial usage, but as restrictive as possible toward anyone who try to make money or take ownership of the project. In short, shall this remain free for all and nobody may make it their own in any form.

I have looked at AGPL but aren't sure it fits the bill?

[I wanted a rude username]

AGPL is the right licence if your project provides an online service. If your project doesn't do that, AGPL has no benefit over GPL. Both are "copyleft" licences which will indeed help you achieve your aims ... not by treating commercial use any differently than non-commercial, but simply by requiring everyone who distributes a derivative to also provide the code, including their improvements.

[FriedMule]

Thanks, I was looking at the AGPL because, as I understand it, does the GPL not prevent anyone from renting the software out, as long it is done via network or cloud, while AGPL restricts that part also.

My goal is to make a program truly free or gratis for everyone, while preventing anyone at all for, ever been able to use parts of the code to get money. I have seen too many open source projects where part or the whole code has been used as the main foundation with little to no change to then get sold.

[tunk]

How are you going to enforce it?
Out of curiosity, any examples of "code has been used as the
main foundation with little to no change to then get sold"?

[Benta]

What does your "code" have to do with "Open Source Hardware"?

[RoGeorge]

My understanding about licensing is that it can be whatever you want, as long as your requests are not illegal.  It doesn't necessarily has to be some standard license.  It's a contract you can shape however you like.

For example, you can make your own license saying exactly that "mention the author, free only for non-commercial use, otherwise requires written consent from the author".

[FriedMule]

My question has nothing to do with hardware but still open source as I wrote in the first post:-)

Yes I could maybe write my own license, but how will it be looked at in a court, is it legally binding, are there any loopholes?
Therefor, do I think an already written agreement will do better.

[m98]

There is no true license but the Unlicense.

[mazurov]

Yes I could maybe write my own license, but how will it be looked at in a court, is it legally binding, are there any loopholes?
Therefor, do I think an already written agreement will do better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration says that "Copyright in most countries today is automatic on "fixation" – it applies as soon as the work is fixed in some tangible medium." In the states code pushed to Github is recognized as tangible medium, modern lawyers even understand what "SHA of the commit" means. If Denmark is like the most countries, this is also true there. You can grab any license text you like, Creative Commons Non-Commercial seems to fit your case.

[RoGeorge]

This site has a brief about most of the existing licensing models, in one line and plain English:
https://tldrlegal.com/

[Zipdox]

The GPL licenses are the de-facto best software licenses, unless you WANT companies to use your code in their proprietary programs. "Weak" licenses like MIT and BSD are effectively the same as making your code public domain, so it's pointless to use them. "Strict" copyleft licenses are the only way to ensure that you code remains free.

I suggest you read this article. While the language may be slightly inappropriate, the point being made is extremely valid.

If your program runs standalone on a computer, use GPL-3.
If your program provides a service over a network, use AGPL-3.
If your program is a library intended to be used in other programs, use LGPL-3.

I advise against writing your own license for several reasons:

• Your license would first need to get approved by the FSF or OSI to be considered free software or open source.
• You might forget something which results in loopholes that have already been thought out in established licenses.
• Your code becomes incompatible with integration into other free software.
• Distributions might be reluctant to package your software.
• Your license might satisfy your requirements, but it might not abide by the FSF free software requirements or the OSI requirements, effectively not making it free software or open source.

I wouldn't worry about people selling your software. If it's available for free, I doubt anyone would pay money for it, unless they are very misinformed, in which case, it isn't really your problem.

[Zipdox]

There is no true license but the Unlicense.

Did you even read the post? This literally contradicts OPs requirements. Using the unlicense is effectively like writing a company's proprietary software for free.

[m98]

There is no true license but the Unlicense.

Did you even read the post? This literally contradicts OPs requirements. Using the unlicense is effectively like writing a company's proprietary software for free.

I simply advocate for using licenses that bring freedom in and keep the lawyers and buerocrats out. Why would I care how someone uses something I wrote? It's not like I'm getting paid regardless.

[cdev]

If they use it commercially, but sell it affordably, I don't see them as being "for profit", so much. To me, It depends on how much they charge.

Thanks, I was looking at the AGPL because, as I understand it, does the GPL not prevent anyone from renting the software out, as long it is done via network or cloud, while AGPL restricts that part also.

My goal is to make a program truly free or gratis for everyone, while preventing anyone at all for, ever been able to use parts of the code to get money. I have seen too many open source projects where part or the whole code has been used as the main foundation with little to no change to then get sold.

Yes, I agree. But there are lots of FOSH products that are priced quite affordably and that does make a big difference.

[free_electron]

"The following sourcecode is free to use in non-commercial applications and no profit can be made of it or derived products except by the original writer. Code is as-is and the user accepts any risk when using it."


that's really all you need.

[Benta]

The one the OP needs is:
Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-SA (or perhaps CC BY-NC).

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Those are bullet-proof.

[bkw]

I would say CC-BY-SA myself.

GPL is the right idea but just not the best fit for hardware.

But CC-BY-SA is the equivalent of GPL for hardware and artwork etc.

I personally leave out the NC because I don't think that helps anyone or makes the world a better place.
It's just being a d*** for no reason and actually kind of shoots your own self in the foot.

So in other words, user of your stuff must:
* preserve your name/credit (they can add their own, they just can never remove yours)
* what they got for free, so must they make available for free to the next person

Trying to add any further limits like non-commercial just limits the usefulness of your efforts and you yourself would have much less goodies today if everyone else had always used non-commercial for anything open source. I don't care if someone makes money somehow using something I made, I only care that they don't try to steal it by pretending they created it alone, and don't try to deny it to others when it was given to them for free.

I think NC is really only good for artists, writers, filmmakers, musicians, etc, where they want to sell versions of the things themselves.

I myself will tend to shy away from using anything with NC in it's limits, because I don't want to invest any time figuring out cool hacks and uses and figure out all the quirks and learn something inside-out, only to maybe one day discover I can't use it. Even if I have no intention to use something in a commercial capacity, it could still come up anyway by chance. Maybe out of the blue one day I need to solve a problem for a friend that owns a coffee shop, and it becomes a paid job. Maybe I want to make a youtube video and it's just one part of the project but since the video might be monetized, even though I don't actually have a real channel and no followers and would probably make 11 cents in 5 years... it's technically commercial use. It's not worth the worry of the risk. Safer to just avoid things that might possibly be a problem  even if I don't *expect* that problem.
Even if you think about the purely nice sort of usage like educational. I don't want to risk learning how to make a power supply from an NC design when I might get a job later designing power supplies. What if it's something fancier than a power supply, and what if there is some unique recognizable trick in there?

But the other limitations that just say "don't steal" don't have that sort of problem. I don't have to worry that one day I might want to steal. So GPL and CC-BY-SA materials are safe as houses, use all day every day for as many jobs as possible.

Some people try to paint GPL and CC-BY-SA as being just as poisonous and untouchable as what I just described, and resent when people don't license things MIT. "great, your stuff is useless to me then." Don't worry about that. They have no argument. That is only crying that they're not allowed to steal and there is no reason to sympathize at all.

[bitwelder]

Other possible candidates for hardware are the three variants of CERN Open Hardware Licences (https://cern-ohl.web.cern.ch/)

[bkw]

CERN-OHL-S does look good.

[Brianf]

How are you going to enforce it?

^^^^That.

Unless you've got piles of money sitting there ready to sue anyone for breaching the licence, and good luck doing that in places like China, why bother?

[Zipdox]

"The following sourcecode is free to use in non-commercial applications and no profit can be made of it or derived products except by the original writer. Code is as-is and the user accepts any risk when using it."


that's really all you need.

This is not compatibly with the open-source definition nor the free software definition.

[bkw]

Enforcing it is irrellevant to deciding and declareing what you want. Completely separate and barely even related issue.