Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Software License That's Libre But Not Gratis?

Posted by kdawson on from the give-the-customer-what-he-wants dept.

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?"

45 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. No license necessary by morbiuswilters · · Score: 3, Informative

    IANAL, but if you are not imposing a EULA, you shouldn't need any kind of license. End-user licenses restrict what can be done with the copy of the software that is owned. Licenses like the GPL restrict what can be done when redistributing the software, but impose nothing on the end-users. If you are not wanting to permit your end-users to redistribute, simple copyright is enough to protect your rights without the need for an additional license. If the software is not being redistributed and you aren't requiring a EULA, then the end-users are free to modify the software as they see fit (or do anything with it, except redistribute) under existing copyright law. So it seems copyright law as-is protects you from redistribution and permits your users the ability to modify the software, without the need of any license.

    --
    I have come here to chew memory and kick ass... and malloc() is returning a null pointer.
    1. Re:No license necessary by gnick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Officially I think you're right. I deal with several vendors who license their stuff to us. We are often trying to work beyond what their out-of-the-box COTS customers want, so we often ask for a little bit of flexibility (APIs for developing our own aps - nothing fancy). They usually ask for a NDA, which may be a good idea in this case too, but nothing fancy.

      IANAL.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:No license necessary by DustyShadow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IANAL, but if you are not imposing a EULA, you shouldn't need any kind of license. End-user licenses restrict what can be done with the copy of the software that is owned. Licenses like the GPL restrict what can be done when redistributing the software, but impose nothing on the end-users. If you are not wanting to permit your end-users to redistribute, simple copyright is enough to protect your rights without the need for an additional licenseIf the software is not being redistributed and you aren't requiring a EULA, then the end-users are free to modify the software as they see fit (or do anything with it, except redistribute) under existing copyright law. So it seems copyright law as-is protects you from redistribution and permits your users the ability to modify the software, without the need of any license.

      This is 100% incorrect. Copyright law does not allow some to create a derivative work without the consent of the copyright owner. And when I say derivative, I mean modification. The author of the summary is confused because he or she does not understand that a modification is a derivative work (assuming modification uses the original aspects of the work that the original author created himself.) You are assuming that copyright protects only from redistribution. That is wrong. Here is what the statute says:

      15 USC 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
      Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
      (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
      (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
      (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
      (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
      (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
      (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

      http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

      As you can see, derivative and distribution are two separate rights granted to the copyright holder.

    3. Re:No license necessary by grantek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:No license necessary by sowth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you're a developer you (should) know that everything gets copied everywhere a zillion times in the natural execution of the application code.

      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!

    5. Re:No license necessary by belmolis · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't really accurate. Although it is true that copyright law appears to prohibit the mere creation of a derivative work whether or not it is distributed, in fact some kinds of derivative work are not considered infringing so long as they are not published. If your interpretation were correct, annotating your own copy of a copyrighted book would constitute copyright infringement, which is not the case. You are perfectly free to annotate your books - you are not free to publish your own annotated edition of someone else's book. Similarly, it is infringing to publish a translation of a copyrighted work, but you may make your own translation and keep it for your own use.

    6. Re:No license necessary by scientus · · Score: 3, Informative

      thats specifically not what the poster wants, the creator wants to ensure getting paid, therefore the licence within firefox and truecrypt that permits copying (under certain restrictions) is not acceptable in this case.

      Also trademark stuff is valid for all software or anything even without copyright law even if things are in the public domain. Firefox etc all do more which is to copyleft it, making sure that people have to let each next user also view the original source, AND the contributions that any other developer makes, if they distrobute it.

    7. Re:No license necessary by grantek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends who your customers are - most companies I've seen are scared shitless of using anything that doesn't have a brand name.

      The only way you can "ensure getting paid" is by not giving the client any freedom (or source) at all - the whole point of the open business models is that the customer can pick up your code and go pay someone else to support it, and that's ironically why you can charge a premium.

      Really, this "licensed codebase" is something different, and it's done all the time (like licensing a game engine to create your own game), all you need is a suitable NDA to keep anyone leaking the code to the public.

    8. Re:No license necessary by RichardJenkins · · Score: 2, Informative

      A machine like your Chevy is not copyrighted. The design documents are, but not the device itself.

    9. Re:No license necessary by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to pick a fight, but,

      • Parent poster's theory: "The only way you can "ensure getting paid" is by not giving the client any freedom (or source) at all - the whole point of the open business models is that the customer can pick up your code and go pay someone else to support it, and that's ironically why you can charge a premium."
      • Actual practice: "They wrote it, so it's probably cheaper + safer (fewer bugs will creap in alongside the new features wo want to add) for us to get them to modify it than to get someone who has to get up to speed on it."

      Only source that's widely distributed and used will get 3rd-party support. Otherwise, customers are pretty much married to the devs.

    10. Re:No license necessary by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Every time you load the program into memory, you're creating a derivative work. The copy in memory is NOT an exact binary copy of what's on the disk - in the case of binaries, the loader patches addresses (hence modifying a copy of the "original work"), links to libraries, etc; in the case of scripts, the interpreter creates a modified, derived work when it creates the parse tree from the script, before script execution.

      As you can see, you *have* to have the ability to create derived works, or the program is without use or purpose.

      Just wanted to point out that not all modifications are also derivations, in the practical sense. This was decided with the Game Genie case, where it was held that the sale of a tool that allowed the user to alter the copy in memory did not in fact violate copyright law:

      The introduction of the original NES Game Genie was met by fierce opposition from Nintendo. Nintendo sued Galoob in the case Galoob v. Nintendo, claiming that the Game Genie created derivative works in violation of copyright law. Sales of the Game Genie initially stopped in the U.S., but not in Canada. In many gaming magazines of the time, Galoob placed Game Genie ads saying "Thank You Canada!" However, after the courts found that use of the Game Genie did not result in a derivative work, Nintendo could do nothing to stop the Game Genie from being sold in the U.S. Sega, on the other hand, fully endorsed the product with their official seal of approval. Before the lawsuit was filed, Galoob offered to make the Game Genie an officially licensed product but was turned down by Nintendo.

      It's clear that the Game Genie does create a derived work. It's also clear that derived works are not necessarily banned by copyright. Where it would stop is with redistribution of the work (in the case of Nintendo, a bin of the moddede game), as apposed to the Game Genie itself.

      That being said, I think this whole discussion is a tempest in a tea-pot. Simply put, you sell them the script along with an agreement saying that it is protected copyright, that the customer has the NON-TRANSFERRABLE right to use the software, as well as create enhancements or modifications for their own internal use, but does not have the right to redistribute the software.

      Make sure you make it non-transferrable - with the waves of bankruptcies and amalgamations going around, you don't want to see your work get a "Second Life" well beyond the intended scope of the original agreement.

    11. Re:No license necessary by akac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    12. Re:No license necessary by j0nb0y · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And this is why it's not a good idea to get legal advice on slashdot...

      let's review:

      The exclusive rights granted in copyright law are detailed in 17 USC S 106:

      17 USC S 106 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

      The statute uses the word prepare. You will be in violation even if you don't distribute your derivative work. For a case dealing with this specific subject, see Walt Disney Productions v Filmation Associates, at 628 F.Supp. 871. Unfortunately I can't seem to find a copy of it online.

      IANAL

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    13. Re:No license necessary by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only is specialized software with restricted access to the source, but the person selling the software needs to have an actual contract in place, not rely on copyright law. My company does this: we develop highly specialized software, and our customers have the option of either using it in binary form, or having access to the source so they can customize it on their own (this costs more). Either way we have contracts in place written by our corporate lawyers that basically say "whatever you do, you are not allowed to sell it, redistribute it, etc." and the contract is specific to that business relationship. It names the two companies and the specific terms of the sale that is occurring, and the terms of the contract.

      Relying on copyright law would likely not work very well in this case, as it is ambiguous enough that to this day people are arguing about it in court.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    14. Re:No license necessary by mdmkolbe · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

      16 USC 117 gives you the right to make any copies that are essential to the utilization of the program. No extra license is necessary.

    15. Re:No license necessary by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    16. Re:No license necessary by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      A good specific example of this is Apple's Shake compositor.

      For $10,000 you get access to unlimited licenses and the source code. But you're bound by an NDA and contract to not release any code modifications or even publicly state what modifications have been made.

      You'll read interviews where a VFX supervisor will say. "We used a proprietary 64bit compositor to do the IMAX work." What they're trying to say is. "We recompiled shake for 64bit but we aren't allowed to name the application due to NDA."

      If the OP wants to read what such a contract would look like I would just reference the Shake source code license.

  2. Re:And your asking slashdot why? by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it is an interesting question, more than just the poster can benefit from the answer.

  3. slashdot legal advice? by drDugan · · Score: 5, Informative

    um, like, hire a real lawyer. really, dude.

    1. Re:slashdot legal advice? by Cadallin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      um, like, hire a real lawyer. really, dude.

      ^ ^ That. Seriously. But secondly, You're asking about EULAs. The GPL is not a EULA. None of the libre/Open Source licenses are EULAs.

      What you want is purely the domain of contract law. The conditions under which you license software you own are between you and the licensee. Plus whatever court has jurisdiction if either of you decides to sue. Hire a lawyer if you're not confident on what provisions are likely to hold up under a judges scrutiny.

    2. Re:slashdot legal advice? by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

      um, like, hire a real lawyer. really, dude.

      That's real brilliant advice, but the problem is there are astonishingly few lawyers who will have the slightest clue how to answer this question.

      I would suggest that a techie's best bet is to get as informed as possible before taking this to a lawyer, because it's really treading new ground. Can you tell I've been there?

      Slim Devices, and subsequently Logitech, wanted to pursue this kind of license for our firmware, so that we could allow customers to have certain benefits of open source, without enabling competitors to make knock-offs of our hardware products with no effort beyond soldering down the parts.

      Ages ago I came up with the Slim Devices Public Source License, which later got rolled into the Logitech Public Source License. Only recently did we actually ship a major firmware product based on it, which is the SqueezeOS platform that underlies the (imminently hackable, linux based) Squeezebox Controller. Customers can see the source code, learn how it works, customize it to their needs, etc, but they are not allow to redistribute without permission. It's not "Open Source" by the official definition, but it's a great compromise IMHO which met our business constraints.

      I searched far and wide for lawyers who understood these technicalities, and even at a major multi-B corporation with an awesome legal team, this was new ground. So educate yourself and check out as many examples as possible, and then find a good IP specialist to help you craft a license, but be prepared to prescribe exactly what you want that license to do.

    3. Re:slashdot legal advice? by rleibman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude... you absolutely rock, I love my duet and will be buying a boom soon. A very happy customer

    4. Re:slashdot legal advice? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      um, like, hire a real lawyer. really, dude.
      That's real brilliant advice, but the problem is there are astonishingly few lawyers who will have the slightest clue how to answer this question.

      That's why I'm going back to school for a law degree and focusing on intellectual property. This is clearly a niche that is growing and will continue to grow but definitely lacks enough "experts," or even many trained practitioners. You are very right, and I hope to capitalize on the fact few lawyers have any software knowledge at all, and few have any interest or experience with IP. This is a rapidly evolving field, which is the kind of thing that scares attorneys who are used to being able to refer to their text books for long standing, well-settled precedents. Granted, my own programming abilities are rudimentary, at best, but a good grasp of the basic concepts and issues in question should prove very useful. Being lumped into a category with slimy litigators and ambulance chasers is certainly not appealing, though I don't anticipate finding any shortage of clients once I pass the bar. Professional legal advice is a must for any serious software company, but finding knowledgeable, affordable counsel can be quite difficult.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re:slashdot legal advice? by Taxman415a · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no reason the licence needs to be in 'legalese' instead of plain english. Just be careful that there are no loopholes in interpretation.

      That's what legalese is: removing the loopholes in interpretation from plain English when it is interpreted by the law. Well that and an agreed upon lexicon that the courts and other lawyers have agreed on.

    6. Re:slashdot legal advice? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was going to post the same thing, but instead I'm just going to say that, just for once, Slashdot should trust the AC poster's content. What he said is very true.

      In the IP arena, I'm solely interested in copyright practice, but I still couldn't get more than a handful of interviews with IP firms. The interviews were all basically over once they found out I had the one natural science degree that didn't qualify me to sit for the patent bar (abstract math).

      To even take the patent bar, you have to have a degree in a certain science or engineering field or have a substantial number of hours in a particular field (it's like 28 hours of physics, for example, and maybe 32 of chemistry as an alternative). The only exception to this rule is basically if you're on the level of Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, you can sit for the patent bar. I've talked with several patent attorneys, and not a single one has ever heard of a person being granted this exception by the PTO.

      Two of the top IP firms, Fish & Richardson and Knobbe (pronounced like Obi-Wan) both have gobs and gobs of Ph.D.-level scientists licensed by the PTO who also have law degrees.

      What AC said is true: the IP law field is staffed by more brainpower than you can possibly imagine. My friend was a science Ph.D. candidate (leaving information out to protect his identity in case the firm is reading) working on his dissertation before dropping out to go to law school. He's extremely brilliant. He went to an interview with Knobbe in Orange County and he said that they'd "open a door" and there would be like 15 bio Ph.D.-holding patent attorneys in a meeting behind the door. Then they'd go to another room, and there were 20 chem Ph.D.-holding attorneys in another meeting.

      I'm not trying to shit on your dreams. Just be aware that there isn't a lack of IP attorneys unless you're looking at some small field like in the realm of software licenses. One professor I know told me there are only about five good software licenses attorneys in the US. The rest are all "dumbasses" according to him. But I really hate classifying software licenses as an IP field.

      In any case, good luck, man. You're going to need it.

  4. An incorrect foundation by dyfet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like many people, you seem to assume incorrectly that copyright law, as defined historically, can be used to artificially control what people do with something they have received and use in their own privacy in the first place. You actually do not have to do anything outside of existing copyright law as it is historically understood and intended to accomplish what you desire. This is why the GNU General Public License, as a copyright license, has to explicitly offer the right to sub-license (distribute) original or derivative works.

    Now some evil companies try to attach additional restrictions using common contract law to claim additional rights they do not actually have under copyright to deprive people of their existing and even constitutional rights (and what can in many situations be considered contracts of adhesion), and the results of these bastardizations are what is often called things like eula's.

    1. Re:An incorrect foundation by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      as it is historically understood

      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.

  5. this sounds like "Shared Source" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    which was the name of Microsoft's family of "not quite open source" licenses a few years back. Several products allowed you to examine the source code but do little else. I don't think they even allowed you to modify and recompile it in those days, but they've since replaced it (IIRC) with the "Microsoft Permissive License" which might be less restrictive.

    One product I remember was Rotor, a sample implementation of the .Net Common Language Runtime (similar to Mono but not as comprehensive). Another was the WTL Win32 GUI framework, which was an alternative to MFC based on ATL (Active Template Library).

    Slashdot was even more heavily anti-MS a few years ago and there used to be withering sarcasm at any mention of "Shared Source"... not so sure about today.

    1. Re:this sounds like "Shared Source" by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot was even more heavily anti-MS a few years ago and there used to be withering sarcasm at any mention of "Shared Source"... not so sure about today.

      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.

  6. Not much needed by Zerth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Terms & Contracts by logicnazi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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:

  8. Wait, what? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Informative

    gives the customer the freedom to modify the product as they want, but prohibits them from creating derivative works

    Modifying the product is creating a derivative work.

    My company is developing some software using Ruby. It's proprietary software â" decidedly not free-as-in-beer â" 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.

    Look into selling them a copy of your software, instead of a license to use a copy of your software. US copyright law does permit people who actually own a copy of software to make certain kinds of modifications (don't recall what exactly), make the needed copies to actually use it (disk -> ram, etc), and such.

  9. immunity by Deanalator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You might want to check out Immunity.

    http://www.immunitysec.com/

    They sell CANVAS, an exploitation framework. A subscription is pretty expensive (that is, dirt cheap compared to core impact), but it comes complete with python source code, and the licence they use gives full rights to modify any of the code as you need to (sort of a requirement for exploit frameworks).

  10. Re:And your asking slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    It's not laziness. We just love seeing you get your knickers in a twist.

  11. Re:They're paying for it but can't give it away??? by pavon · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is unlikely that the person licensing the software is their sole customer, or that they paid for all or even a majority of the software development. When you are a small company who has any interest in building some "equity" from the work you get, you will be constantly be operating in a mode that is neither simply selling shrink-wrapped software or being paid to write software as work-for-hire but a mix of the two. I've never been directly involved in this sort of work, but from what I've seen on the outside, the terms and rights appear to be handled more through contracts than licenses.

  12. You are looking for a non-libre license. by pthisis · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?"

    This question shows a total lack of understanding for what "libre" software is.

    A license along those lines would not be "libre but not gratis". Being freely redistributable and allowing derived works are core parts of "libre" software.

    All the common definitions of "libre" software (OSF, DFSG, etc) include statements like:

    "Free Redistribution

    The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

    and:

    "The license must allow modifications and derived works"

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  13. I've seen a few companies do this by sentientbrendan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously Sun used to do something similar with Java.

    The Python IDE I use, Wing, also allows you to access their source so you can recompile on various platforms.

    Historically, AT&T unixes were distributed with source.

    Really, I've always found it weird that proprietary software companies seem to think it's important to keep the source code super secret, as if it were some kind of trade secret. Having the source available for recompile and modification is handy for the user, whereas the risk that someone will copy past your source code is somewhat minimal. After all, integrating different source bases is an enourmous amount of work, and fairly easy to detect after the fact.

    1. Re:I've seen a few companies do this by ADRA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > important to keep the source code super secret

      The reason will most likely be listed below:

      1. End users making their own changes but still complaining about error that may or may not be a result of their unauthorized modifications

      2. Afraid that other competitors will 'leverage' your investment in development using legal or illegal means.

      3. They don't want anyone to know that they 'leveraged' your investment in development to further their own product using legal or illegal means.

      4. They didn't bother to patent anything and they're relying on being hidden to keep their trade secrets safe.

      5. They license another developer's code which has the exact same limitation, and instead of negotiating with the upstream dev for source distribution rights or reimplementing the needed functionality themselves, they just choose to do nothing.

      Anyways, many development environments/frameworks allow for source distribution because customers want to know why an obscure function 3 stack steps into your API routine is throwing ugly errors at you. With clear-and-open source, a developer could use a debugger and realize that they screwed something up before having to contact support with an obvious (to the original dev) problem.

      Outside development libraries/frameworks and free products, a full source dump of any given product is pretty rare, at least from my experience.

      --
      Bye!
  14. To clarify ... by duncan+bayne · · Score: 2, Informative

    When I wrote:

    but prohibits them from creating derivative works, or redistributing it in any fashion?"

    I meant to imply the redistribution of derivative works there.

    Obviously, modifying the software in-house counts as a derivative work, and I'm okay with that - just not with the idea that customers would then onsell or give away the modified product to other potential customers.

  15. Re:And your asking slashdot why? by hdon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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*

  16. Re:And your asking slashdot why? by duncan+bayne · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because it's not about helping, it's about feeling better about himself by proving his intellectual superiority in a public forum.

    Just like I did right there ;-)

  17. Re:The customers already HAS the freedom to modify by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hate replying to car analogies, but here goes:

    You can buy a car and do whatever you want with it, but this will void the warranty and the manufacturer will not support you if it breaks down.

    You can sell the car, but NO WAY are you allowed to copy the car and sell those copies. Say if you own a car factory, you're not allowed to buy one Ford F100, then reverse-engineer it and sell identical copies as Ford F100s. Nor are you allowed to change, say, the colour of the upholstery, then sell the whole thing as your own work. No way. It's not just the electronic media that has these restrictions.

    --
    sustainable living
  18. Re:And your asking slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    *ducks*

    *rabbits*

  19. NDA over the source is what you want. by KarlH420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like you want to sell it with commercial license + NDA over the source code. .

  20. Radiator has that kind of licence by Lorens · · Score: 2, Informative

    Radiator (a commercial Radius server) is provided with source code. Their license is at http://www.open.com.au/license.html. I just read it (again), and the legalese seems rather complete, you just have to remove the sentence saying that derivative works are not permitted, and replace it with something saying that the Licensee is permitted to modify the work for his own use as he sees fit but that any such modifications are to be considered part of the licensed work and may not be distributed to anyone except back to the Licensor . . . but since your company's money is involved you should go ask your local copyright lawyer what he thinks :-0