All proceeds go to Against Malaria Foundation (GiveWell's top-rated charity).
Currently not open source, but am trying to figure out how to set a license that encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it.
What I usually see happening is that they release two versions. One under GPLv3, MIT or whatever very permissive licence and a Pro version with many advanced features with a proprietary licence.
If you want to prevent forking and copying then I either suggest to keep it closed source or make sure that you maintain the best version of the app so users will have no motivation to switch to a fork and be loyal to the original creator.
By definition, any such license wouldn't be open source. However, as others have mentioned, putting it under a copyleft license would make it unlikely that others would do so, since they wouldn't be able to distribute their version without providing source under the same license themselves.
People can certainly use a term in a way contrary to the expectations and definitions used by the vast majority of other people, and then they shouldn't act surprised if they're either misunderstood, called incorrect, or perhaps most importantly, called out as being intentionally obtuse and confusing and asked to stop that. Language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but descriptive language can still call some usages incorrect when they're exceedingly likely to be interpreted differently than the standard meaning and lead to unclear communication.
Several decades ago, before open source was nearly as widespread and before there were any popular definitions, it was understandable when people use the term rather fuzzily; everyone had their own understanding of it. That's not the case anymore.
In any case, the original point would still stand if stated as "that set of goals is incompatible with what the vast majority of people who use the term 'open source' would consider 'open source'", but that would be excessively verbose, would only serve to confuse the point with a needless distraction that wasn't part of the original topic, and would in particular distract from the more important point of "here's a possible way to do what you're trying to do without that problem".
In my case it feels like it would take quite a bit of effort to pull out features from the software and make a stripped-down version available.
My primary reason for wanting to share the code is that perhaps it will be a useful place for others to learn some things (though I don't think my code is stellar / exemplary and I know it has some serious shortcomings).
I guess it isn't a big problem if someone releases a clone of my app for free as long as I somehow can require (request) they always link back to the original on their website and in the app itself. But I'm not eager to chase people around and pester them if they don't comply.
I'm thinking I might wait for a full year since release (until February 2019) and just put out the whole code on GitHub with a 'free to do anything' license and a personal request that people always include a link to the original in the compiled app and on/through whatever websites they share it on.
Reach out to the EFF and see if they can give you some pro Bono consulting on how to license it for your needs. Alternatively, @buu700 and I have worked with and can recommend https://twitter.com/falconred (Jim Rennie). I get no commission for the rec—we last worked with him two years ago.
One feature I need (and would like to tinker with the code to add it) is support for subtitles in multiple languages at the same time. http://voicetube.com does this to help people learn English; I'm trying to learn Chinese.
Unfortunately life in Taiwan has been really hard for the last few months though, so I'm preparing to leave. Busy looking for new jobs in other countries now.
What kind of job are you looking for?
I'm most passionate about control systems/automation, network admin, and circuit design. But I've done a wide variety of other projects (big data, web apps, device drivers, tech support and repairs for friends). I'm not good at art or marketing, so front-end design isn't for me. I'll consider pretty much anything else though.
Learned english when I was a kid by watching cartoons with subtitles... Good luck.
Another way is giving it a 'non-commercial use only' stipulation, which might not be lawyer proof.
Any of this won't prevent people from trying to profit off of it though.
PS: Remember to have an CLA so you won't have any problems with selling it.
Seems like either GPL or the creative commons by-nc-sa (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) to me.
Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Creative Commons discourages using its' licenses for code: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
> Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website.
If you want your copyleft to apply to over-the-network users, you want AGPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
The first is that it doesn't really stop commercialization, it's perfectly possible to make a commercial service using open source components.
The second is that I'm of the opinion that it may fail once tested in court, basically for the reasoning laid out here [0] (not sure if the author of that is a lawyer, I've seen lawyer's express that position before though).
That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading.
Therefore, as soon as you have the right to use the software, the licence applies (as the licence is what grants you the "possession").
As for the law mentioned (17 USC 117,17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs), that only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances, such as copying for any technical requirements for operation, or backup purposes. The AGPL additional provisions don't overlap with this provision of the copyright law. The author seems to have misinterpreted the law imho.
Sorry, but you're the mistaken one here. You need a license to make copies of, derivative works, etc. If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. We can see this through, for example, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software [0] (the portion about direct infringement, Wikipedia has a link to the actual ruling as well if you prefer that).
EULA's, unlike the GPL, use contract law to get around this. In order to purchase/download the software I enter into a contract with you giving up some of my rights. The FSFs position as I understand it is that the GPL and AGPL are not contracts though, just licenses, so they don't serve a similar function (assuming the courts agree with the FSF).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_....
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Only for the purposes of execution can this copy be retained (as it's impossible to not make a copy while in memory).
However, I cannot keep the executable in memory, and use it for any other purpose (including letting someone else also execute it) unless authorised by the copyright holder.
In AGPL, the js/css etc are copyrighted. But the transmission isn't from the copyright holder to end user, but from an licensee to an end user. There's no relationship between the end user and the copyright holder. But the licensee is bound (by their very license) to allow the end user access any sources, despite them not having any relationship with the copyright holder. This licence doesn't contain any illegal clauses, and is voluntarily entered into by both parties, with consideration exchanged (it being the promise to make source available). Therefore, it's a legal contract.
Now, as for whether it's enforceable is hard to say, but I do believe it is sound...but IANAL of course.
The AGPL probably works for client side js/css. But that's not really a surprise since the GPL probably works for client side js/css. What I am not sure it works for is strictly server side code.
The FSF has argued that the AGPL/GPL is not a contract. Other lawyers have argued it is a contract. I take no position on that argument, which is a good part of why I simply say "may" be found unenforceable.