HN Explorer

Ask HN: Is there an open source license which prevents commercial use?

5 points by hvasishth ↗ HN
I am planning on open sourcing a project I worked on. I am trying to find a license which gives others the freedom to use the code in whatever way they want to, with the caveat that they can't make money off it. I don't think anyone will try but still I just don't want others to be able to make money off my work. So do you know of a license which does what I am looking for?

10 comments

[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 32.6 ms ] thread
xiaomai
By definition, a license that discriminates against commercial use would not be open source, if I understand correctly (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd).

That said, the GPLv3 would probably meet your needs well. It ensures that if anyone modifies your program and distributes it, they are obligated to release their changes to the source code (also under the GPL). I suppose they could still bundle your code up and sell it, but at least any value added by them in terms of program-modification should come back to you.

orangecat
"Make money off it" is rather vague. If you're just talking about reselling the software, the GPL3 might work. It's legal to copy GPL software and resell it, but since you have to provide the source (and GPL3 removes the Tivoisation loopholes), as a practical matter it doesn't happen.
hvasishth
Yup reselling the software without any significant changes is the main thing I want to avoid.
JoachimSchipper
If you care about "tivoization", you may want to look into the AGPL.
rtaycher
Doesn't happen except by all the time by primarily open source companies.
veyron
Why does it concern you that others not make money off the project? Why not just choose a license that allows you to charge money for commercial uses?
hvasishth
That would work as well. I didn't realize there was an open source license which lets me do that.
madhouse
Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-CA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) comes closest, I believe, even closer than the GPL, but it might not be as good for software as the GPL is (I've never used a CC license for software).

Other than this, the GPL(v3) is the closest thing, as has been said before.

However, the downside of restricting it to non-commercial use is that hardly anyone if at all will use your software, and it probably will never make it into any of the mainstream distributions, rendering it fairly irrelevant. I don't think that's worth the price, so I'd go with the GPLv3.

rtaycher
Something that legally prohibits this falls outside the definition of open source. Dual licensing with part of it not available as open source can fulfill your need although many including me somewhat dislike that and consider that against the spirit of open source. The GPL prevents people from modifying/distributing modified source without releasing the source and is highly disliked by a number of companies who would have nothing to do with it. They can still use it without distributing it like on a server without releasing changes as open source.
barisme
Look into how Ghostscript is capitalized. It might be good to look at some other case studies too so you understand the broader range of possibilities. To get help on that you might need to phrase the question a little differently.