0

I have to provide my code to someone to look at and use, but wish to maintain a number of rights. Specifically, I want a license that 1) Limits my liability, 2) prevents commercial use and 3) prevents further distribution, including of modified copies. I have been unable to find anything that covers this. The closest I have found is a Creative Commons license, but distribution is still (obviously) allowed.

JosephG
  • 209
  • 1
  • 6
  • 2
    For (3), read http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/79585/software-license-open-source-but-no-distribution-for-free-or-for-profit - as long as you do not explicitly grant rights for distribution, copyright alone is sufficient to forbid further distribution. For this, there is no special license required. – Doc Brown Nov 07 '15 at 00:36
  • 2
    The problem with "no commercial use" licenses is that it is really hard to define what is commercial use and what isn't. – Philipp Nov 07 '15 at 01:27
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of [What is the "default" software license?](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/26548/what-is-the-default-software-license) –  Nov 07 '15 at 03:43
  • You could keep your code proprietary. Actually, even with a permissive free software (existing) license, attracting people to your code is harder than what you think. With a weird license like the one you dream of, nobody will get interested by your code, so just simply keep it private. – Basile Starynkevitch Nov 07 '15 at 22:04

2 Answers2

3

I am not aware of any standard license that has those attributes. The "no redistribution" requirement is antithetical to the principles of open source, so none of the existing Open Source licenses will be applicable.

I suggest that you consult a lawyer and get them to help you draft a license that meets your needs.

Don't just do it yourself. There is a significant risk that a "DIY" license will not mean what you intend it to mean ... when interpreted by legal professionals. Or, key aspects of your license may be unenforceable.

In response to a couple of points in other Answers:

Licences like Creative Commons (and others like Apache, BSD, GPL, etc) are meant to be templates.

That is not true. In fact, they are generally intended to be used as-is ... apart from filling in the details of the license granting organisation or person. If you treat the standard licenses as a template that you can tailor you risk giving away rights that you didn't intend to; see above.

For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL

Organisations write their own licences all the time.

Yes organisations >>do<< write their own software licenses, but only with the help of a qualified legal professional

Stephen C
  • 25,180
  • 6
  • 64
  • 87
-1

Licences like Creative Commons (and others like Apache, BSD, GPL, etc) are meant to be templates. Most people use them as is without modification, but there is nothing to stop you from taking something like Creative Commons, and modifying the "no distribution" clause - you just can't call it Creative Commons.

Organisations write their own licences all the time.

HorusKol
  • 4,131
  • 1
  • 20
  • 25