4

I'm looking for a license that's similar to the CC BY-SA license that allows people to use my code for whatever purpose as long as they license derivative works under the same license. The distinction between it and something like the GPL (and why I want a different license) is that the CC BY-SA allows you to release builds of software without the source code. This means that if someone releases a source-unreadble version people can reverse engineer and freely copy it.

The issue with the CC BY-SA license is that it's not suitable for software. There's no warranty disclaimer, and its applicability to software presents a lot of questions. Is there something with the terms of the CC BY-SA except for the usual fixings in a software license?

EDIT: Something I forgot to mention is that I want to emulate something close to the CC-BY-SA 1.0 license where there is no compatibility with the GPL.

webb
  • 41
  • 2
  • The fact that the license would exclude the requirement of source code distribution seems to be against the intentions of the OSI open source definition. This is making your question off topic (see https://opensource.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic ). I am not clear about the benefits of the license you are looking for. Maybe you could elaborate on that point (but I am not sure if that would ever make it on topic). – Martin_in_AUT Feb 09 '23 at 15:16
  • Wouldn't that make permissive licenses like the MIT license off-topic? – webb Feb 09 '23 at 15:28
  • I edited the title to clarify that I'm referring to derivatives being source-unreadable. – webb Feb 09 '23 at 15:38
  • @Martin_in_AUT I think a copyleft license without source code requirements could be useful for adapting "free without sources" software, eg some tools included in the (MIT License) free software MS-DOS v2 release. They're binary-only but the MIT conditions allow sharing and modifying (and, of course, reverse-engineering) these programs. – ecm Feb 09 '23 at 15:42
  • 3
    @Martin_in_AUT This question asks for a software-appropriate license that otherwise behaves identically to CC BY-SA (which is a free license according to the FSF), so this seems on-topic to me. This asks for a license that allows the downstream loss of source code, like a permissive license, but doesn't allow the distribution of binaries without rights to redistribute and modify (if you're handy with a hex editor, I guess). The free BY-SA already does this but without warranty disclaimer or patent awareness. – apsillers Feb 09 '23 at 16:52
  • But according to our principal question on the subject, and the CC FAQ, the main reason for CC licences to be avoided for software is that they "do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code". But the OP has specifically said that the only reason (s)he doesn't want GPL is that (s)he doesn't care about source availability, only copyleft. It seems to me that CC BY-SA is exactly what (s)he wants. @webb, could you perhaps clarify if there's anything other than the general advice to avoid CC licences that stops you? – MadHatter Feb 10 '23 at 09:37
  • As I mentioned in the question, patents are an issue. The license explicitly does not grant patent rights. Also something I should have mentioned if I had remembered in the OP (and might justify an entire new question) is that the CC-BY-SA allows you to use the GPL with derivative works, which is something I don't want. It's also just a bad license for software because the terms are not written for code. – webb Feb 10 '23 at 16:41

1 Answers1

3

I do not think that a license currently exists that implements your requirements

  • copyleft

  • full attribution

  • suitable for software distribution

  • no need to provide source code

  • disclaimer of warranties

  • disclaimer of patent non-infringement

I suggest that if you require a license like this you should contact a lawyer to write it for you. Once you have done that you might want to submit it to The License Review Process so that the world can use it (without OSI blessing many developers --especially companies-- will not want to touch the code).

Martin_in_AUT
  • 7,205
  • 10
  • 37