HN Explorer

Ask HN: Difference between licensing software binaries vs. source?

2 points by catoc ↗ HN
I want to release a software application so that everyone can use it for free, non-commercially.

With non-commercial I mean: I'm fine if companies use it internally, as long as they don't start selling the software itself or use it in a marketed software product.

There is a lot of online advice for licensing open-source software, but I am not interested in releasing the source code, and the software does not include any GPL-licensed components.

Obviously: IANAL - as in: totally clueless.

Does the question even make sense? Do binaries even need a license? To me one thing that would make it require a license is the "non-commercial use". Another thing might be that I want people to be able to use it, and sometimes the absence of a license, the legal uncertainty that brings, is inhibitive.

Any advice, discussion or links are very much appreciated.

5 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 20.6 ms ] thread
thesuperbigfrog
>> Do binaries even need a license?

Only if you want to have a say about how people use the software.

Most software include a license. For example, Windows end user license agreement (EULA):

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/OEM/Windows/10/UseT...

PaulHoule
Even if you have a highly permissive attitude of what people can do with your software you want to tell people that the software is on an ‘as is’ basis, that you don’t owe them any support (unless they sign and pay for a support contract) and that they won’t sue you.
catoc
Yes, I have a Terms of Use, that stipulates the "as is" and "no guarantees".
dragonwriter
> Do binaries even need a license?

If people need to exercise any of the exclusive rights under copyright, including making copies (which most software does to work) some license is needed, though the license may be implied by the manner in which the software is made available rather than by explicit text.

Whether a license is necessary, and whether if so the effect you want requires an explicit license, is a legal question that you probably want to go to a lawyer for. But, generally, if you want to release it publicly and have it both clear and enforceable that it is allowed to be used in certain contexts but not others, you probably are going to want an explicit license, because otherwise it is almost certain that either want you want to allow won’t be clearly allowed or what you want to be prohibited won’t be clearly and enforceably prohibited.

catoc
Sounds like we agree an explicit license is necessary. That begs the question which. From what I read, home-made licenses can be almost as problematic for legal folk as no license at all.