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:
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.
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!