Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Can my public github project not be open source? [closed]

I have a new project in github. It is public. However I don't remember being asked what license to give it.

In google code / sourceforge before starting a new repository I recall being asked to commit to an open source license.

Of course there is a difference between public and open source. Can I say, for example, you are free to download, read, and study the code but you have to pay $$$ for running it? Or you cannot fork it? Or whatever non-open-source-compatible-clause-here?

like image 801
flybywire Avatar asked Jun 05 '13 06:06

flybywire


People also ask

Are public GitHub projects open source?

GitHub is not open source. Pragmatically, this doesn't make much of a difference to most users. The vast majority of code put onto GitHub is, presumably, encouraged to be shared by everyone, so GitHub's primary function is a sort of public backup service.

Can you use GitHub for closed source?

The hosted service GitHub.com is free for open source projects and it has fundamentally improved open source collaboration. But the software GitHub's service is based on is closed source.

Can an open source project become closed source?

Yes, it is possible to make an open source project into a closed source project. The copyright holder can change the license of a project at any time, or cease to distribute source code of new releases. New releases can therefore be made closed source.


1 Answers

I have a new project in github. It is public. However I don't remember being asked what license to give it.

Code hosted at GitHub without any explicit licence mostly falls under the "All rights reserved" clause (cf. InfoWorld post on this subject). Below a relevant excerpt of the item:

"What are the terms under which the code in all those GitHub projects is made available? A precise answer depends on your jurisdiction and would require a lawyer's advice, but it's likely that the answer for most people is "all rights reserved" -- in other words, you have no rights to use the code. GitHub does not include any useful default licensing terms in its terms of service; the most likely scenario is that any use of the copyrighted material in one of those no-license projects is formally a breach of copyright. Under copyright law, code without a license cannot be legally shared, as the default for copyrighted materials is that all rights are reserved."

However, in order to clearly state your intent, maybe would it be better to clearly add a licence in your repo (as a separate text file (eg. COPYING.txt) and as part of the README.txt file.

Of course there is a difference between public and open source. Can I say, for example, you are free to download, read, and study the code but you have to pay $$$ for running it?

You could get some inspiration from the RavenDb project dual licencing mode which limits the usage as follows:

  • Commercial editions can be used in closed source environment and are available under a subscription or perpetual pricing model. Prices are per instance. As long as the subscription is valid, new releases are included in it automatically.
  • You can use Raven for free, if your project is Open Source.

Provided you accept Pull Requests, it may be a good idea to make sure contributors abide to the licencing mode and make them explicitly accept the Intellectual Property related terms and the transfer of the ownership of the copyright. As an example, you can refer to the RavenDb contributing guide.

like image 130
nulltoken Avatar answered Sep 17 '22 15:09

nulltoken