1

How should I license some desktop icons and shell bash files as open sorce software? I am creating and going to package them for Ubuntu 14.04.

4
  • This highly depends on your opinion on what you are comfortable with.
    – Rinzwind
    Dec 30, 2014 at 21:50
  • Any ideas as I have never do this before
    – Jhondoe
    Dec 30, 2014 at 21:54
  • Open sorce but that not able to make edits to the code and must have my name a seatless in the sorce code of every file
    – Jhondoe
    Dec 30, 2014 at 21:54
  • 2
    @Jhondoe What sense do you ever put into these ten letters: ‘open source’ if you are going to strip your licensees from the right to modify your work? I saw quite a lot cases of misunderstandings of that silly term ‘open source’ – people usually believed that they could prohibit commercial usage of their product or selling it and still call it ‘open source’, but you are the first person I met who thinks that ‘open source’ work could be unmodifiable. Dec 31, 2014 at 0:37

1 Answer 1

2

On the question of Free Software vs Open Source, you might want to have a look at the Philosphy of the GNU Project, particularly at Richard Stallman's Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software.

If you rather prefer to watch and listen, have a look at Richard Stallman's most recent (2014-12-29) talk Freedom in your computer and in the net, given at 31C3.

You wrote:

Open sorce but that not able to make edits to the code and must have my name a seatless in the sorce code of every file

That would exclude the GNU GPL, since you want to deny the freedom to distribute modified versions of your work.

In principle, a conceivable licence then would be Creative Commons license, namely Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).

A package licensed under these conditions will never make it to Ubuntu main, for which LIcensing explicitly makes clear:

Must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same licence. Just having the source code does not convey the same freedom as having the right to change it. Without the ability to modify software, the Ubuntu community cannot support software, fix bugs, translate it, or improve it.

2
  • 1
    That would exclude any free / libre / ‘open source’ license actually. Dec 31, 2014 at 0:40
  • 1
    @DmitryAlexandrov True! The NoDerivatives limitation might have a reason for artwork (or not), but it is a stupid idea for code or for the publication of scientific research. Imagine to tell people not to apply your published experimental findings on their our research: WHAT!? :D Dec 31, 2014 at 0:58

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.