0

I have an app that I want to make open source, as in the literal definition of the code being public. Github says that if you don't apply a license, it's copyrighted by default. I want that, to be the only one who can distribute the app, sell it, etc. Customers can download the code and build it if they're tech savvy enough but otherwise I'd like to charge a buck for an easy .zip/.dmg download link on a website. But I'm also open to contributions if in the future someone wants to.

However, according to https://opensource.guide/legal, "If you don’t apply an open source license, everybody who contributes to your project also becomes an exclusive copyright holder of their work. That means nobody can use, copy, distribute, or modify their contributions – and that 'nobody' includes you." That last part stumps me. They can contribute code but I can't use their contributions so it's like why did they even contribute. I want contributors to retain credit for their work, but I don't want someone to be able to distribute and sell my work just because they added one line of code to it.

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not trying to get put out of business here by my own app's doppleganger somewhere out there on the web. By all means, make my app better and put it on your resume, but forfeit your selling rights to me!

apsillers
  • 35,995
  • 4
  • 94
  • 131
  • 1
    I don't think this is a duplicate of the linked question. IMHO the (real) question here is why everyone else also becomes contributor when they send patches - an aspect not dealt with in the linked question+answer. Even with the title rephrased as by my edit it may be marginally on-topic, but I think it's a question asked similarily repeatedly and warrants an answer on its own – planetmaker Jan 23 '22 at 16:22
  • I agree with @planetmaker and think the angle of "why don't I control others' contributions by default and how can I do it?" is a reasonable on-topic one for the site. The non-commercial angle isn't by itself on-topic but it's not clear to me that merely mentioning it disqualifies this otherwise on-topic concern about external contributions. I'll see if ai can edit it to be clear the non-commercial provision is peripheral (this question could also apply equally to other on-topic restrictions, like AGPL's network obligations.) – apsillers Jan 23 '22 at 16:48
  • 4
    As it stands, though, the non-FLOSS licensing terms are the front and center focus of the question. If we want answers that focus on the on-topic concern of accepting contributions, this question ought to make clear that (1) the OP does intend to use a license that allows the preparation and distribution of derivative works (with some form or another of restrictions) and (2) the main question is how those restrictions apply to the original author when external contributions are made. – apsillers Jan 23 '22 at 16:59

0 Answers0