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?"

Comments

Re:And your asking slashdot why?

[Toonol]

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

slashdot legal advice?

[drDugan]

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

Re:slashdot legal advice?

[seanadams.com]

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.

this sounds like "Shared Source"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No license necessary

[DustyShadow]

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.