Slashdot Mirror
A Software License That's Libre But Not Gratis?
duncan bayne writes "My company is developing some software using Ruby. It's proprietary software — decidedly not free-as-in-beer — but I don't want to tie my customers down with the usual prohibitions on reverse engineering, modification, etc. After all, they're licensing the product from us, so I think they should be able to use it as they see fit. Does anyone know of an existing license that could be used in this case? Something that gives the customer the freedom to modify the product as they want, but prohibits them from creating derivative works, or redistributing it in any fashion?"
If it is an interesting question, more than just the poster can benefit from the answer.
Slap a big "You can't distribute our code or your modifications" on it.
Seriously, though, you don't need much of license to cover "hack it, don't share it". It is the copyright/patent crazies that add the "can't decompile, modify, etc". The default state of copyright is you buy it, you can bang on it, you can set fire to it, but you just can't make copies or derivative works.
All you really need to make clear is that you consider patches, mods, etc to be derivative works and remind them that they can't share them.
That will last until somebody makes the first User Group list, but at least you tried. Make sure you get enough money up front, because your consulting money will dry up after enough users feel overcharged that one gets into the fixit business.
I don't remember the exact definitions but I seem to remember that any modified copy of the product that your customers create, even if it is never distributed, counts as a derived work.
Now if you are really going to be selling this software as a commercial product I think it's a mistake to do so without getting some legal advice. The fact that you are selling your product (instead of giving it away) may very well create implied rights of action, e.g., state or federal law may allow customers to sue you for damages if your product causes data loss or otherwise fails to live up to expectations. Therefore failing to get legal advice might open you up to liability.
Of course there are probably generic software licensces that are prewritten but the genericity usually comes from the fact that they cover your ass by restricting the customer's rights as much as possible. Still, if you look you might find something.
What you really seem to want is a licenses that give the customer the rights to use the work and create derivative works as they see fit but not to redistribute the work or any derived works. Since you should be getting legal advice anyway this would be trivial for a lawyer to arrange.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Firstly, if you are restricting the redistribution then what you are asking for is not "Libre". Redistribution is one of the four freedoms of a Free Software License. If you don't fulfill that you are not asking for a Free License, you are asking for an OPEN SOURCE license (which contrary to popular belief means ONLY that the source code is available, not that you automatically have the right to do with it as you please).
Anyay, what you are asking in the summary can be done. It is (fairly) common to grant clients the right to use the source code for approved purposes. The Torque game engine has one such license. Several web-based "Enterprise" application I use at work have such licenses. I don't believe any of those use any particular standard license. I would suggest beginning your search here. Perhaps I should have just used Let me google that for you.
I would hesitate to rely on copyright law. Since you're a developer you (should) know that everything gets copied everywhere a zillion times in the natural execution of the application code. This may be trivial but file formats and proprietary network protocols or APIs greatly complicate the issue. The way I understand it is that the idea of "licensing out" software instead of just selling it under existing contract of sale law is that you're granted a license to do all that copying and to freely copy created files in proprietary (new) formats across networks and on their hard drives.
Why is it that you couldn't just say "as it is currently understood"? Obviously because it's not understood that way anymore. Copyright today bears very little resemblance to old copyright law. IANAL, but I read a book once.
That's because it was a pathetic attempt to Extend to the free software community and gain some brownie points with the snowballing number of people who think they're evil. In this case it's someone legitimitely interested in giving freedom and flexibility to his clients but not giving up his business by just giving his product away.
Depending on how valuable the source actually is, you could go the TrueCrypt/Firefox route and allow redistribution and modification, but use trademarks to protect your "official" version that has monetary value.
A basic search will turn up a lot of licenses, how can you be so lazy that you can't type something into Google but are able to submit a Slashdot story?
Why read Slashdot at all? Just Google the news, like I do. Just type "What is <current-date> like?" into Google and let'er rip.
Google provides search results, not dialog.
Slashdot used to provide editing, too, but for a while now that's been more of a nuisance than a feature.
*ducks*
How is this different than people use textbooks? People "copy" them into not only their notes, but their brain, "a zillion times." Or music? Any CD player which has skip protection copies the data to a RAM buffer to carry out its function. Any MP3 player copies the data to a decoder chip which probably also is copied to a RAM buffer before it is copied to the D/A converter. I could go on, but if you don't get it at this point, you are either screwing with me or are really stupid.
In fact, "copyright" law should have been named distribution rights law because that is what it does. It doesn't really try to enforce copying like you claim it does. It enforces the authors right to control redistributing the material so he or she can make a profit off of his / her work as if that work were a real physical object. If someone copies a work they purchased for their use (as long as they have the material in their possession), that is within the spirit of copyright law. If someone gives (distributes) a copy to someone else while not assigning them the original copy they procured, this is breaking the spirit of copyright law.
...and file formats and APIs don't really complicate anything, at least with US law. (Your jurisdiction my vary) Last time I checked the US Copyright Office site, it said names, recipes, numbers and the results of math and the like were not copyrightable. Computer algorithms are the same as "math." Function names and calling them would apply to this category, would they not?
Obviously anyone can claim what copyright is supposed to be, but this is the way I see it.
I would also like to point out the constant asinine claims where many "businessmen" say they can micromanage, demand payment, and otherwise control something they have sold to another are an affront to the basic concept of property. Once you sell something, it isn't yours to control!
Not to pick a fight, but,
Only source that's widely distributed and used will get 3rd-party support. Otherwise, customers are pretty much married to the devs.
"but this is the way I see it" means nothing. What matters is how the courts see it, not you.
As for the last paragraph - that's patently wrong too. Its not the computer code or math that you are copyrighting, it is the entire product of that. Just like nobody can copyright words, but you can copyright a book. It is the collection of words put together that make specific thoughts, ideas, in a particular way.
And you cannot copy a book or be liable. So you cannot copy a piece of software. That software contains mathematical algorithms put into specific ways, designed with artwork, and more that make it copyrightable.
IANAL, and you should get one.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, and I'll probably get modded down for this. But seriously, if your enterprise is going to go anywhere, you need competent legal representation from the get go. If you don't have a lawyer on staff or as a partner, you should hunt around and find a decent lawyer who is willing to partner with you for a minority equity stake. Find a reasonably guy who's able to see the long-term potential of your company and is willing to invest the time that it takes to ensure a strong legal foundation, and you won't regret your equity loss even one day. (I'd say that in a startup with 2-4 partners, a %10 stake is probably about right, YMMV)
Slashdot is littered with condescending posts about business majors who thought that what programmers do is just simple and who tried to do it themselves, and did a total WTF stupid in the process. Things like trying to write enterprise, thousand-user software in FileMaker Pro. Or secure a website with javascript-based access control. Or passed passwords via telnet over the plain-Jane Internet. Or any of a thousand other obvious stupids that only somebody completely clueless about technology might think is a good idea.
And when it comes to anything legal, you are just as dumb, just as clueless, and just as likely to do a serious WTF that leaves your fledgling company high-and-dry, or worse, in deep liability doo-doo. Lawyers go to school and learn the meanings of all kinds of "almost-English" words like "good faith" and "collateral estoppel" that mean almost nothing to you or I, but have real implications when brought up in court or on contracts.
You are an expert in your field, you expect (and deserve) to get paid well for your time. Lawyers are in the same boat, in a different industry.
At the very least, see sites like Legal Zoom or Nolo Press and have some reasonably decent quality documents to start with. That is, until you can get some reasonable legal representation.
The bottom line: if you don't get legal representation, you are going to be legally representing yourself. And you'll probably muck it up just as bad as the idiot who thought that writing a high-quality 3D FPS game in Perl was a good idea.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Yes you fucking can. Cease and desist from spewing this authoritarian MAFIAA filth. You are degrading yourself and the internet.
There is absolutely no repercussion for copying a book. You can copy a book a million times. You can set up a whole goddamn counterfeiting operation inside your own house without doing a single illegal thing. It becomes copyright infringement the second you give your copied book to someone else. Distribution. Copyright controls distribution. Get this into your thick head.
captcha: ferocity