Which license should I use?
Say I have made some software (which is both in library form and can be used by the end user).
Now, before the release, I was thinking under what license I can release it.
I have the following problems that I can think of (additional comments can be added):
- Open source
- I have to retain full credit as an author,
although extenders may be redistributed and add their names to their contributions. - I need to be able to make money.
- I can trade 3 point with the popularity of the software.
- International license.
Thank.
source to share
There are many licenses that do this. Start by filtering:
Condition (1) simply means choosing any license approved by the Open Source Initiative http://www.opensource.org/
Condition (2) is given - every license I know prohibits the removal of your copyright.
Condition (3) is also given - all open source licenses permit commercial use, they simply do not permit use in closed source software. Plus, you own the copyright, so you can republish it under whatever other terms you prefer, for example, you can release it under the GNU GPL, and then when you want to use it in a proprietary program, rename it to yourself. license. Another way to make money with open source is essentially to do this trick, but for a fee - if someone wants to release their code under the GPL, they can use your code for free, otherwise they have to pay for the commercial, use the license ... Which license is most suitable depends on how you want to make money on your software,and if it's a standalone application or library. One drawback of the GPL replication trick is that it is more difficult to invest contributions — since you usually cannot use correspondence code that someone else wrote in the GPL for your commercial licensing scheme; it only works if you own the copyright, either because you wrote everything yourself, or got the opportunity to donate your copyright to you.or got the opportunity to donate their copyright to you.or got the opportunity to donate their copyright to you.
Condition (4), being popular, is not a license factor, but a software factor. :)
Condition (5) must be met by any widely used open source license. Most of them are not explicitly international, but I have never heard of any major problems with general licenses.
So, I would say the real gist is (3). If you want to be able to sell your own versions of your software, but still if someone else can do it, use the BSD, MIT, or X licenses. It's simple and simple, and you can easily participate in the standard license. If you want others not to use it commercially, use the GPL and pay for it.
Another way to make money on open source software is through consulting, but this depends on the specific license you choose and much more on how your software is popular and widely used.
source to share
Point 2: All open source licenses that I know come across with this.
Points 3 and 4: This is the crux of the matter. What's most important to you: distributing your software or making money? There's also a third possible requirement that doesn't seem important to you because you didn't mention it: keeping your users free.
If wide distribution is important, you may want to consider a BSD-style license.
If money is important, you should consider dual licensing.
If user freedom is important, the GPL or one of its variants is a good choice.
Also, from your description, you have an app and a library. Do they need to have the same license?
Here is an article from a developer that has similar requirements for yours.
source to share
Almost all open source licenses will execute (2) as they require the author to still be credited to everything.
Problem (3) is a little more interesting because if you are using a genuine open source license, you cannot prevent other people from selling the software, and also licenses that prevent people from using it in a certain way (not commercially) are not real open source licenses and are better described as source or shared licenses.
You might want to check out a Creative Commons license like CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-SA that satisfies your non-commercial restrictions, but as the author of the work itself, you can still use it commercially, of course. However, Creative Commons licenses are not for code, but more for other creative work.
(4) and (5) don't really mean anything when you think about licensing.
source to share