Does anyone know where a good Closed-Source freeware license is for me to use which gives me full rights over my software, does not allow others to redistribute at a cost, but does not oblige me to support or maintain source code for. I don't have the facilities to do an open source project at the moment (my source isn't organised enough) but I plan to in the future. At the moment I just want some basic legal cover beyond the little copyright at the bottom of everything.

There's nothing in the GPL (or, for that matter, ANY open source license I know of) that "obliges you to support or maintain the source code". For that matter, there's no open-source license that provides more legal cover than the "little copyright at the bottom of everything".

I suggest you read the GPL and a couple of other licenses. They aren't especially hard to understand, and it'll give you a better idea of what's out there and what a software license can do.

I have browsed the licenses on GNU.org and almost implemented the MIT license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) but I got the impression from elsewhere on the GNU site that I would be obliged to redistribute and maintain code on request. This is not an obligation I am prepared to make.

In the preamble of the GPL it says
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

Quote:

In the preamble of the GPL it says "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

this does not apply to YOU, as you are the owner of the sources. the statement above apply to the receiver of the sources/program.

more generally, all the things in the GPL does not apply to THE OWNER of the sources, but to the user/receiver. thus, you, as the owner, have no obligations (unless, of course, moral/professional obligation to assure that the software runs nice and smoothly :)

But in the licenses it says that the user has the right to modify the software. Surely I am denying them this right if I do not provide access to the source.

(Sorry to be pedantic but I want to make sure I am using the right license).

i dont think opensource licenses are suitable for closed-source software. you have 2 options, from my point of view:

1. create you own license (based on existing opensource or other, by removing all references to sources :)
2. use the classic EULA (which is probablly the way to go)

The whole point of open source is that the source is available (open) for others to modify or distribute. That means that the owner of the source must make it available by distributing it with the product or making it available free of charge (or for a minimal cost to cover the cost of distribution). Those who download and use this source must in turn make it available, although stuff they add does not necessarily have to be open source as well.

If you want to make a closed source game then you don't want or need an open source license or even a re-written open source license with the open source bits taken out. - you don't need a license at all. You own the copyright, you own the source - just distribute the finished product with a copyright message and keep the source. If you want the game to be freeware then just say that. You can also include an EULA stating how the game can be used/distributed but that is all you need.

That's why my original post said closed source. The idea of open source GPL without the open source was slightly bizarre.

Does anyone know where I can find a decent EULA. Can I just pinch one off a random piece of freeware and delete/edit the bits that obviously need to be changed? Is there one on the net somewhere for general use?

I just need a basic thing to say there is no warranty, no legal responsibility for any damage caused, and that they must not redistribute the program to other users without written consent, although they can make copies for themselves and refer people to the site for their own copies. Also I want to reserve the right to make the software shareware, even though I will probably never use this right. The more rights I keep the better.

Taking an existing one would be breach of copyright although (let's face it) you are unlikely to ever get caught. You could simply load one of the games on your shelf, install it and read the EULA. Then just re-write it in your own words.

Quote:

Those who download and use this source must in turn make it available, although stuff they add does not necessarily have to be open source as well.

with no intention to seem like a nasty person, this depends on the license. under GPL, one have to release the modifications, under LGPL, it's not mandatory.

AP: you may parse through one of the non-free licenses listed on gnu site, but afaik, such license will not be qualified as free software (probablly you don't intend to anyway :o).

now, i don't think that releasing the sources and asking not to sell applications based on it would be good. most probablly, you will release only the sources and not the art assets. of course, one would reverse engineer your data files, but i think the assets are more important for a game than the code. but this, again, depends on the game.

/rant mode on

out of my limited knowledge as opensource developer i'd say that: people fear like hell from GPL license for GAMES, because they have to also release their source modifications and the potential publishers of such games are not too fond of opensource. then, for a thief, it would not matter whether the license is GPL, MIT, Sun Public License, he will rip your sources off, create the application and sell it without remorse.

when i released (my) engine, i put a nice GPL over it because i would have loved to receive source modifications and integrate them. turned out that this is not the case, except for occasional contributors, none bothered to release any modifications. so, after being slaped in public :o) (actually on the project forums) for the fact that GPL is prohibitive for commercial applications, i changed the license to Lesser GPL.

/rant mode off :)