Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Lincence "no commercial use"

  1. #1
    Senior Member+ Frank B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Germany NRW
    Posts
    5,661

    Lincence "no commercial use"

    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

  2. #2
    I'm no expert in this area, but I see this used a lot for sharing 3D models in the 3D printing communities:

    https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

  3. #3
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    20,171
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    167
    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 by chipaudette; 04-02-2017 at 07:30 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member+ Frank B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Germany NRW
    Posts
    5,661
    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 by Frank B; 04-02-2017 at 09:17 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    167
    Thank you for the considerate reply.

    Chip

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    338
    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?

  8. #8
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    20,171
    These licenses are mostly a matter of copyright law. Here's links to info about copyright duration.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...yright_lengths

    https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

    https://opensource.org/faq

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    641
    Those rules are alterable though. Originally it was 14 years. See here:
    http://artlawjournal.com/mickey-mous...copyright-law/

    Probably would be better to have a copyright with a reasonable expiration. I wonder why no one has included that. At least one that has to be actively renewed would be nice.
    Last edited by linuxgeek; 04-04-2017 at 03:48 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •