Im in the process of creating a useful framework of libraries that I would like to license with three different options, a Open Source license, a Indie license, and a Commercial license. I have always lived in the GNU (GPL, LGPL) license space, so I have no experience in creating software that uses different or multiple licenses for that matter. So any help would be appreciated. The Open Source license would allow Open Source, non-commercial projects to use this framework, as long as they make the changes to the framework available to the public and there project remains non-proprietary and non-commercial (Open Source). The Indie License would allow the licensee to sell projects made with the framework, royalty free, as long as they did not make over 150k annually, along with some other possible restrictions, at a lower price then the Commercial License option. The Commercial License would allow the licensee to sell projects made with the framework, royalty free and without restrictions, for a price larger then the Indie option. (Somewhat akin to TGEs Licensing options, but with an Non-Commercial option.) Getting to my question(s), what would be my best licenses for these options? Would it be best to create my own licenses? If so, where would I find information on how to construct your own license? The first guess off the top of my head would be that I would have to make my own licenses for the last two options. Thanks, - Dead1ock

If you want a custom license, you will need to consult a lawyer familiar with drafting software licenses.

For the Open Source license, look at the various Creative Commons licenses. It sounds like you fit closely to a few of those.

You would need to find (or have a lawyer draft) your indie license. I am not aware of any that exactly fit your description, although I have read a few licenses over the years that are similar. I can't recall the details of where they were from, only that I have read them. (Sorry!)

The commercial license could follow any traditional EULA system you want to apply.



One big issue to be careful of is pulling contributions back into your source. If somebody puts a feature or bug fix into the open source version, you cannot pull their changes back in to your base unless you have a properly executed written assignment of rights from the author. You will want a lawyer to draft that.

Quote: Original post by frob
If you want a custom license, you will need to consult a lawyer familiar with drafting software licenses.

For the Open Source license, look at the various Creative Commons licenses. It sounds like you fit closely to a few of those.

You would need to find (or have a lawyer draft) your indie license. I am not aware of any that exactly fit your description, although I have read a few licenses over the years that are similar. I can't recall the details of where they were from, only that I have read them. (Sorry!)

The commercial license could follow any traditional EULA system you want to apply.



One big issue to be careful of is pulling contributions back into your source. If somebody puts a feature or bug fix into the open source version, you cannot pull their changes back in to your base unless you have a properly executed written assignment of rights from the author. You will want a lawyer to draft that.

Thanks for your reply. I have looked at CCLs and found that the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 is my best bet for my Open Source option.

Ill be looking into other licenses to see what is my best option for the other two.

Another question popped into my mind last night that I couldnt find an answer to on google. Do I have to put a summary of the license my project uses in EVERY source/header file in my project? Or can I just use:

<Project Name> <Short Description>
(C) <Year> <Team Name>

and just put a file named LICENSE in my root that has a full version of the license?

It would be allot easier for me to just swap out that file when I distribute different versions of the source code, instead of going through each source/header file and changing the license summary there.

Thanks for the help,
- Dead1ock

Quote: Original post by dead1ock
Another question popped into my mind last night that I couldnt find an answer to on google. Do I have to put a summary of the license my project uses in EVERY source/header file in my project? Or can I just use:

<Project Name> <Short Description>
(C) <Year> <Team Name>

and just put a file named LICENSE in my root that has a full version of the license?

Close.

Copyright should be spelled out in full. The © sign has partial recognition, and (C) has no formal legal significance that I am aware of. The name should be the proper legal name (not just your team) to be associated with source code. The year or years should be full. Many people prefer listing every year it was modified rather than a range.

Second, it should include a statement of copying permission. You should have your lawyer help you with the final draft, but it should effectively state:

"This file is part of Foobar.

Foobar is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Foobar is distributed under your choice of three separate terms. You should have received a copy of the licenses along with Foobar. If not, see . <br><br>To summarize your license options, this software is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license, available at . If you qualify, you may use alternate license terms ("Indie License") to use this software royalty free in commercial products with certain restrictions. If you do not qualify for either of those options you may use the third license ("Commercial License") under terms negotiated with the copyright holder. To discuss licensing terms contact [somebody] at . <br><br>Copyright 2007,2008,2009 John L. Doe"

Quote: Original post by dead1ock
The Open Source license would allow Open Source, non-commercial projects to use this framework, as long as they make the changes to the framework available to the public and there project remains non-proprietary and non-commercial (Open Source).

This would probably be a bad restriction since it completely removes the ability to use your framework for GPL software (one of the most common opensource licenses).

I suggest that you scrap the non-commercial and making the source available for the public in order to stay compatible with the GPL. (Otherwise you prevent a very large portion of the OpenSource projects from using your framework).