Licensing Free Software

Bonjour,

I'm just wondering if anyone knows of any license agreements I can use for some free software I am releasing? I don't want to use the GNU license because that states that the source code is available and that the user can do whatever they want with the software including modifying it and selling it - and I don't want to provide the source code or let people sell it.

I know I could just write my own license agreement but it would probably be pretty rubbish and not have the correct legal terms etc in it. So if there is anything out there that I can just copy and paste then that would be good :) I've done a bit of searching on google but the only thing I keep finding is the GNU license.

Cheers
Chris

I'm not sure but I just checked some IBM software I have installed on my computer and it has a GNU license and I don't think IBM give out or sell their source code.

Hmm that's interesting, maybe I can just use the GNU as a template and modify it to suit my needs? I don't really know anything about how licensing works! I'm not sure if I can say that my software comes under the GNU license but has some exceptions or if it has to follow every letter of the GNU license. I guess I'll have to have a good look through the FAQ on the GNU website :)

I'm fairly sure there are different versions of the GNU licence, and one called "lesser" does not have the rights to source code and selling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

I'm fairly sure there are different versions of the GNU licence, and one called "lesser" does not have the rights to source code and selling.

---

Yes, you are correct! IBM use both, the GNU Lesser General Public License and another (which, I can't think of right now). Anyway a list of licensing types can be found here.

Ah cool that GNU Lesser License sounds like it might be what I'm after then :) I'll check it out, thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

I don't want to provide the source code or let people sell it.

---

As I suppose you develop your software in .NET, make sure you are using a good obfuscator, otherwise it would be as if you gave away the source code. That's why byte code sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

Ah cool that GNU Lesser License sounds like it might be what I'm after then :) I'll check it out, thanks

---

I suggest that if this is disc media, you supply a printed version of the license. If it is online, as I suspect it is, you should supply a printable version of the license, or at least part of it. You only need to give them all the GNUs that's fit to print.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

As I suppose you develop your software in .NET, make sure you are using a good obfuscator, otherwise it would be as if you gave away the source code. That's why byte code sucks.

---

I dont really care if someone wants to look at my source code in Reflector or something, I just dont want to give the source code away and say people are free to do what they want with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I suggest that if this is disc media, you supply a printed version of the license. If it is online, as I suspect it is, you should supply a printable version of the license, or at least part of it. You only need to give them all the GNUs that's fit to print.

---

Yeah it will all be online, and I'm going to just supply the license in a txt file with the app :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

I dont really care if someone wants to look at my source code in Reflector or something, I just dont want to give the source code away and say people are free to do what they want with it.

---

If the code is not obfuscated, people could decompile your software, make modifications and compile it again. Once they have modified it, it is not your software anymore and they could even sell it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

If the code is not obfuscated, people could decompile your software, make modifications and compile it again. Once they have modified it, it is not your software anymore and they could even sell it.

---

You can do the same with any software... I've decompiled programs to assembly code that were written in C++ and made modifications to them (all in the name of learning of course) - that doesn't mean its legal for me to go and sell that software as my own and its no different with a .NET application.

Besides, even if the code is obfuscated that doesn't stop anyone decompiling it... just makes it a bit more work for them to actually be able to understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

Yeah it will all be online, and I'm going to just supply the license in a txt file with the app :)

---

My post was a pun, but perhaps one that doesn't work on that side of the pond.

@Esposito: We aren't drinking the cool-aid. Why bother decompiling and re-compiling if you are going to steal software? There are pirated versions of pretty much any significant software out there. Do those people bother making some kind of cosmetic alteration just so that they can claim it is somehow different? Not too likely. After all, major pieces of software have lawyers willing to sue makers of knock-offs. There have been some famous lawsuits of that nature over the years. Smaller pieces of software aren't protected by vigilant teams of lawyers, so they get stolen without repercussion.

A minor change is not enough to protect you from lawsuits in this country (not sure about any of the European countries). On the other hand, if the change is significant...then you might as well write your own code so that there will be no legal question. Anybody can copy an interface. Anybody can copy functionality. If you are going to go to the trouble of making such significant changes that you are free of legal jeopardy, then what have you actually stolen? If you are not going to worry about legal jeopardy, and are willing to just steal the code, then why bother decompiling and re-compiling? That would be kind of like a jewelry theif melting down the gold from a ring and casting it as a new ring: A total waste of time.

Quote:

---

My post was a pun, but perhaps one that doesn't work on that side of the pond.

---

Yeah I'm afraid I dont get it at all lol but then it is 3 in the morning here so maybe I'm just too tired to understand it :)

It is an American reference. One of the major papers (New York Times, I think) famously carried a banner: "All the news that's fit to print."

Ahhh haha GNUs = News .... very clever :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

My post was a pun, but perhaps one that doesn't work on that side of the pond.

@Esposito: We aren't drinking the cool-aid. Why bother decompiling and re-compiling if you are going to steal software? There are pirated versions of pretty much any significant software out there. Do those people bother making some kind of cosmetic alteration just so that they can claim it is somehow different? Not too likely. After all, major pieces of software have lawyers willing to sue makers of knock-offs. There have been some famous lawsuits of that nature over the years. Smaller pieces of software aren't protected by vigilant teams of lawyers, so they get stolen without repercussion.

A minor change is not enough to protect you from lawsuits in this country (not sure about any of the European countries). On the other hand, if the change is significant...then you might as well write your own code so that there will be no legal question. Anybody can copy an interface. Anybody can copy functionality. If you are going to go to the trouble of making such significant changes that you are free of legal jeopardy, then what have you actually stolen? If you are not going to worry about legal jeopardy, and are willing to just steal the code, then why bother decompiling and re-compiling? That would be kind of like a jewelry theif melting down the gold from a ring and casting it as a new ring: A total waste of time.

---

Imagine you have developed a good piece of software that you are willing to distribute as freeware because you are a generous person. Imagine now that I am a dishonest inexperienced programmer eager to make money. If your software was written in .NET, all I have to do is decompile it (which would not be possible if it were written in native code, in spite of what chris128 says), delete your name from the About box and replace it with mine, make some graphic changes, compile it again and sell it. This way your property becomes my property. You know very well that an inexperienced programmer would not be able to do the same if your software were developed in VB6 or Delphi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Imagine you have developed a good piece of software that you are willing to distribute as freeware because you are a generous person. Imagine now that I am a dishonest inexperienced programmer eager to make money. If your software was written in .NET, all I have to do is decompile it (which would not be possible if it were written in native code, in spite of what chris128 says), delete your name from the About box and replace it with mine, make some graphic changes, compile it again and sell it. This way your property becomes my property. You know very well that an inexperienced programmer would not be able to do the same if your software were developed in VB6 or Delphi.

---

Why would they change the About box and make some graphic changes? They are still stealing the software. I don't know the laws in your country, but over here, it would still be theft. The prosecution would be even easier for a .NET program than either VB6 or Delphi. The only real question would be this: Is the software worth prosecuting over. If you aren't going to press charges, then they don't need to make any changes. If you are going to press charges, then the changes that you have mentioned would not protect the thief even a little bit.

In other words, they have to make enough, substantial, changes that they are not guilty of theft, in which case they wouldn't be stealing anything, or they make NO changes, in which case we are just talking about piracy, which happens regardless of the language. The middle ground, where minor changes are made, is occupied only by the very stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Imagine you have developed a good piece of software that you are willing to distribute as freeware because you are a generous person. Imagine now that I am a dishonest inexperienced programmer eager to make money. If your software was written in .NET, all I have to do is decompile it (which would not be possible if it were written in native code, in spite of what chris128 says), delete your name from the About box and replace it with mine, make some graphic changes, compile it again and sell it. This way your property becomes my property. You know very well that an inexperienced programmer would not be able to do the same if your software were developed in VB6 or Delphi.

---

I'm no reverse engineering specialist, in fact I know very little about the subject but that strengthens my point - about a year ago though I was able to download a program that was written in native C++ and decompile it to assembly code, change a line of the assembly code so that it no longer prompted for an activation key when it launched, and then write that change back to the original EXE (I know it sounds dodgy as hell but it honestly was just a learning excercise). Now if a complete reverse engineering n00b like me can do that, I expect it would be pretty easy for someone to change the text in the About screen.

All that aside though, I cant believe that you think changing the name in the About box makes that software your property... sure someone could do that and try to sell it as their own, but nothing I do is going to stop them from doing that - they could do that with any program in the world, its just illegal so people tend not to do it.

I think my sister wrote a program that stipped all strings out of VB6 programs so that all messages in a program could be translated into other languages. That would take care of the About box, too. I've never been entirely clear on what she did there, though.

Anyway, getting back on subject a little more - I've had a look at the Lesser GNU license and it doesn't seem to be what I'm after so I've decided to just write my own crappy little license. I figure its better than nothing and hopefully I'll never have to actually rely on it anyway...
It basically just says that the user cannot modify or sell the application and that it is the property of the author (me) and is provided free of charge.

That should do. The legality of some of those EULAs strikes me as being a bit dodgy. I think you can be shown to have made a good faith effort, and to have made your intentions for the code clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That should do. The legality of some of those EULAs strikes me as being a bit dodgy. I think you can be shown to have made a good faith effort, and to have made your intentions for the code clear.

---

The difference between the dodgy EULAs, etc and the Personal documents is that I think the personal document need to be done with a lawyer present. Whereas, the dodgy documents could have anything written in them.

What does the lawyer do, shake a chicken over the document? Annoint it with un-holy water? Where does it say "this document was written with a lawyer in the room." in any EULA? There are traps that you can fall into by writing language that is so vague that it can be interpreted in any possible way. In this case, it sounds like the language will be quite permissive, so it needn't be bullet proof. Normally, a contract, written by one party and signed by another, with a witness present, is sustainable in court. In the case of software EULAs, there is no need for a witness, and no real need for a signature. It all comes down to that "Click here to accept the terms."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

What does the lawyer do, shake a chicken over the document? Annoint it with un-holy water? Where does it say "this document was written with a lawyer in the room." in any EULA? There are traps that you can fall into by writing language that is so vague that it can be interpreted in any possible way. In this case, it sounds like the language will be quite permissive, so it needn't be bullet proof. Normally, a contract, written by one party and signed by another, with a witness present, is sustainable in court. In the case of software EULAs, there is no need for a witness, and no real need for a signature. It all comes down to that "Click here to accept the terms."

---

Some EULAs may as well have been written with lawyers present seeing as how much law is put in them.

Meh, mine just basically says "BE NICE" :)