10

I'm developing a software package and would like to make it (and the source) available for personal, academic, or educational use, but not for commercial use. Is there such a license? Ideally, it should be reciprocal, so that if someone publishes a modified version, they'll have to grant the same rights.

Alternatively, would it be possible to modify the GPLv3 in such a way that it forbids commercial use and grants rights only to non-commercial users?

Adrian Willenbücher
  • 239
  • 4
    Modifying any open source license to forbid any specific use makes the result not open source. You're far better of finding a license that already does what you want (or paying a lawyer to find such a license for you). – Joachim Sauer Aug 27 '13 at 07:28
  • 7
    Alternatively, don't prohibit commercial use. This is a subjective matter, but even if you have a huge personal problem with it, it's extra trouble and likely unnecessary: A lot of open source projects, in particular small immature pet projects, are never used commercially at all. –  Aug 27 '13 at 07:30
  • 1
    @JoachimSauer forbidding commercial use goes against the OSI definition of Open Source but that doesn't mean it's not open source. – Sean McSomething Aug 27 '13 at 21:16
  • @SeanMcSomething: both the OSI and the FSF require freedom 0 (freedom for any use) for the Open Source definition and the Free Software definition (respectively). That's about as general a consent as you're about to get in that area. What "open source license" would you say restricts that right? – Joachim Sauer Aug 28 '13 at 05:18
  • 5
    Although I agree with Joachim about the definition of "Open Source", this discussion (and Joachim's first comment) is pretty moot since the question doesn't even mention Open Source. – Adrian Willenbücher Aug 28 '13 at 06:18

3 Answers3

13

I know of a project (omnet++) that does something similar. The license gives permission for personal, academic, or educational use, but not for commercial use: https://omnetpp.org/intro/license

They say that the license is kind of similar to the GPL.

ACADEMIC PUBLIC LICENSE ...This license contains the terms and conditions of using OMNeT++ in noncommercial settings: at academic institutions for teaching and research use, and at non-profit research organizations. You will find that this license provides noncommercial users of OMNeT++ with rights that are similar to the well-known GNU General Public License, yet it retains the possibility for OMNeT++ authors to financially support the development by selling commercial licenses. In fact, if you intend to use OMNeT++ in a "for-profit" environment, where research is conducted to develop or enhance a product, is used in a commercial service offering, or when a commercial company uses OMNeT++ to participate in a research project (for example government-funded or EU-funded research projects), then you need to obtain a commercial license for OMNeT++. In that case, please contact the Author to inquire about commercial licenses.

What are the rights given to noncommercial users? Similarly to GPL, you have the right to use the software, to distribute copies, to receive source code, to change the software and distribute your modifications or the modified software. Also similarly to the GPL, if you distribute verbatim or modified copies of this software, they must be distributed under this license.

By modeling the GPL, this license guarantees that you're safe when using OMNeT++ in your work, for teaching or research. This license guarantees that OMNeT++ will remain available free of charge for nonprofit use. You can modify OMNeT++ to your purposes, and you can also share your modifications. Even in the unlikely case of the authors abandoning OMNeT++ entirely, this license permits anyone to continue developing it from the last release, and to create further releases under this license...

Community
  • 1
Lorenzo Baracchi
  • 341
  • @LorenzoBaracchi: looks good! I'll have to read it thoroughly, but it seems to be what I had in mind. – Adrian Willenbücher Aug 27 '13 at 13:29
  • I do not like it. To complex and repetative license. Dual llcensing is far better than this imho (ie. MIT for non-commercial and a small EULA for commercial use) – boj May 08 '20 at 18:15
8

Would it be possible to modify the GPLv3 in such a way that it forbids commercial use and grants rights only to non-commercial users?

No.

The GNU General Public License is itself a copyrighted document, and is not available under free license terms:

Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://fsf.org/
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

You do not have permission to take the license and tweak it to your needs. You can model a new license on it, but it would need to be a ground-up rewrite, not a simple modification of the terms of the GPL.

TRiG
  • 1,172
  • 6
    ... for very good reason, because I certainly don't want to use code thinking that it is GPL licensed, and then - probably too late - I find out that there are some small changes in the license that might change the meaning completely. – gnasher729 Mar 02 '16 at 17:29
  • Be aware of Section 7, you can add exceptions. – boj May 08 '20 at 18:19
  • 1
    However, @boj, section 7 allows addition permissions, not additional restrictions. Section 7 does not allow you to prohibit commercial use. – TRiG May 10 '20 at 17:58
1

You could take inspiration (with the help of your lawyer) from the license of CompCert which is not an open source software.

BTW, many academics won't even look inside such a software (even if the license permit them to do so).

NB. I am not a lawyer!

Basile Starynkevitch
  • 32,652