Lincence "no commercial use"

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Frank B

Senior Member
Hi,

which is the best licence to use if i want to allow hobby-and educational use only (NOT any kind of commercial) ?

Thanks,
Frank
 
I'd recommend GPLv3.

While GPL advocates will say the GPL technically allows commercial use, as a practical matter everyone making proprietary products or software knows not to incorporate GPL code. There are many other ways to say "no commercial use", but none of them seem to really make the strong impression that the GPL does. Part of that may come from several legal victories by the Free Software Foundation against GPL violators.

Of course, there's always creative commons non-commercial. But I don't believe it really makes the same strong statement that GPL does.
 
What's your reason against allowing commercial use?

In my view, non-commercial vs commercial is a continuous spectrum:
* hobbyist / educational (at home)
* educational at a school
* educational at a private school (ie, a schoole where you have to pay to attend)
* student projects at a university (ie, the work is funded by the student or the college itself)
* government-funded research at a university, with publication expected
* corporate-funded research at a university, with publication expected
* government-funded research at a corporation, but results are open-sourced (I live here)
* open-source product development by hobbyist, small-business or corporation
* government-funded research at a corporation, publication expected but not open-source (I live here, too)
* corporate-funded research at a university, publication prohibited (ie, proprietary research)
* corporate research anywhere, publication prohibited (ie, proprietary research)
* Product development by small business, closed-source product
* Product development by large business, closed-source product

Note the several factors: Who is it doing the research or development (individual, academic, small business, big business)? Where does their money come from? Do they open source? Do they publish? Is their goal to learn something while using your stuff (ie, research towards something) or are they trying to make a product out of your stuff?

Given that there are so many combinations that may or may not be acceptable to you, where do you choose to draw the line? And what benefit is the benefit of drawing the line at all? Why not just open source it in the broadest sense and let anyone use your stuff (ie, MIT License)?

I'm totally curious...this is not at all meant as an attack...I respectfully wish to learn people's viewpoints on this matter so that I can be more sensitive to different peoples' outlooks.

Chip
 
Last edited:
90% of "my stuff" is MIT and 90% will in future be MIT. As you might know I have some libs on GitHub and almost all are MIT (i think one or two are GPL, sry). And there are a few more on other sites (not Arduino stuff). Generally, I like open source, and years ago I've contributed to a linux-kernal and other projects. I've even some photographs ("stock") that are "free to use" and are used.. And I'll do all that in the future. No Problem! It's very ok if it is a little library or a short piece of code/project/whatever.
BUT I don't like it, if my code is nearly 50% of a commercial product. That's all.. just accept that I have a reason.
I didn't want to offend anyone, and it's a question only.:)
 
Last edited:
A semi related question, how long does a GPL or MIT license last? A patent is only good for a certain (seemingly ever increasing) period of time for a good reason. For the better good of all eventually after a period of time for inventor to profit its best for things to become public domain. At least that my feeling about it and seems to be what they were thinking when parents first came into being. Is it possible long in the future GPL and MIT licenses could hinder progress?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top