Searching for non-commercial license for source code

Question

I have written a software program that can encode a unique type of video and would like to release the source code under a non-commercial license. However, I am having difficulty finding an existing license that meets my needs. Perhaps some fine fellow knows of one I am missing?

More details

By non-commercial I mean it must not be used in a commercial setting, be used to help develop commercial products, be combined with other commercial software, or be distributed commercially in any way. Generally, if you are, or will be, receiving money when, or by, using the software, then you're violating the license. This description is probably more restrictive than I need, so any license that is at least somewhat similar would be of interest.

The most popular non-commercial license is probably the Creative Commons Non-Commercial. The Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license is basically want I want, but according to their wiki, they "do not recommend" using CC for software.

The only alternative I've found is Qt Non-Commercial license version 1.0. Because it explicitly states that "everyone is permitted to copy and distribute" the license itself, I should be able to use it to license my source code under. But the note at the end saying it "is governed by the Laws of Norway." and "disputes shall be settled by Oslo City Court" somewhat disturbs me. I'm also surprised there are very few references to this license anywhere on the web. It's like Trolltech/Nokia has completely disavowed any knowledge that the license was ever used.

---

Update: Looking closer at the Qt Non-Commercial license version 1.0, it doesn't seem to say that you can't execute the software for commercial purposes, it just says you can't develop on the software for commercial purposes.

This helps me see there is a difference, and my primary desire is that, whether my program has been modified or not, it is not executed for commercial purposes (e.g. encode video to be used in a commercial project). If a company wants to develop on or change my software, but not use its output for commercial purposes, I could live with that. However, in that case, I would rather then put the source code under something similar to the Reciprocal Public License. Then the changes they make must be made publicly available, whether they distribute it or not.

---

I have searched high and low for other alternatives, but don't see any non-commercial license that may be freely used with my software. Most non-commercial license texts seem to be copyrighted or explicitly state who the licencer is.

Also (as there's a good chance someone will mention it), I am well aware of the various popular licenses used for source code today (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT etc.) and the implications of not using them. They're fine licenses, but none meet my needs as stated above. Thanks!

Answer 1

Your best bet might be a dual license, where they can either use the GPL license (not LGPL) or for a fee a commercial use license. The problem you'll run into is an enormous number of projects have a donation system to cover some of the hidden costs of developer effort - is that a commercial use? Where do you draw the line? From what I can tell, the licenses that will best cover your goals will turn out to be one of:

• The GPL. This allows the users that accept donations, and IMO is very likely to meet your underlying goals despite having different wording.
• The Microsoft Reference Source License (very restrictive, likely more so than you want)
• Or perhaps even the Open Company License of E Text Editor.

Answer 2

Couldn't you use your preferred license by saysing something similar to:

Licensed under the Qt Non-Commercial license version 1, as follows, with the exception that the Choice of Law clause is instead:

This license is governed by the Laws of whatever jurisdiction. Disputes shall be settled by the courts of whatever jurisdiction.

I know people often use the GPL with certain exceptions, I imagine you can do the same with this license.

Answer 3

Very few people will use software that has such stringent non-commercial conditions as you seem to want. After all (to paraphrase the Apache license), who knows what the future may hold? If you want your code to be widely adopted, I suggest using one of the FOSS licenses. The wide adoption will give you lots of possibilities of making money - consultancy, books, support etc.

Answer 4

I've been involved in a project (Angband) with a home-written non-commercial license. It caused a great many problems.

Would it be legal to include Angband on a disk of software that was sold for a nominal fee, or even S&H alone? Would it be legal to host it on a computer anybody pays to access? Eventually, there was a move to GPL Angband, consisting of both getting permission from contributors and rewriting large portions of the game.

No Free or Open Source license will work for you, as it limits use, which is against the definitions of the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative. This means there's lots of places that simply won't touch it, even to host (what happens if money changes hands sometime?).

Write your own license, if you must, but I'm not sure what good releasing your software on such limited conditions is going to do for the community.

Answer 5

In my recent searchings, I may have discovered the most popular community software project with a non-commercial license: MAME. It seems someone even created a non-commercial license based on MAME's, due to the problem of people "using CC-BY-NC licenses for software."

Since there is such a dearth of non-commercial licenses out there, I may be stuck using this MAME-like one.

Answer 6

Happened across one more Freeware (non-commercial) license used here and here.

It clarifies that "any output produced through the use of the Program, or derived from, is subject to this license." An additional stipulation is required that the interface must "print or display an announcement" informing users that they "may redistribute the Work only under the conditions of this License."

A possible derivative of the license (that doesn't include those two clauses) is also used here.