Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

i am glad to say that we are going to make Advanced Electron Forum ( an Opensource project, since we have a lack in developers and we think that this will make the development wheel turn much much better, we are going to post the source code to public in github, but we are not sure about the license that we are going to use, GPL gives too much freedom we don't want,

the only thing we want to prevent the user from doing is the forking, we don't want any forks or redistribution of the code without permission, so what to chose ?

share|improve this question

migrated from Jul 8 '11 at 11:24

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

I think you may be confusing 'open source' with 'free programmers'. – jkyle Jul 8 '11 at 22:15
That's not how open source works, sir. No one wants to work on something they aren't allowed to use. – ChiperSoft Jul 8 '11 at 22:16
up vote 6 down vote accepted

The Open Source Definition states that an open source license must allow the software to be freely redistributed and to allow derivative works to be made. If that is not what you want, you should write your own license. However, that license would not be considered open source, and hence your software could not be rightfully considered open source software.

One thing you can do however is require any forks to carry different names or version numbers, according to paragraph 4 of the open source definition

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if 
the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the 
purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit 
distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require 
derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
share|improve this answer
If the idea is to attract outside development, I'd recommend sticking to an OSI-approved license. Fewer people would be interested in working on software for somebody else than one that's truly Free/Open Source. Open sourcing software to get free development help is something of a gamble anyway, but expecting to get free development for code the developer can't even redistribute is probably hopeless. – David Thornley Jul 8 '11 at 15:17
@David Thornley - I agree completely. You can't get something for nothing. Making software open source involves a trade-off. You get contributions at no (monetary) cost, and the community gets the right to redistribute and reuse. Trying to get the former without allowing the latter is unlikely to go very far. – Zhehao Mao Jul 8 '11 at 17:24
interesting, so what license requires the forks to use different version-ing and naming, and keep the licensee's name on the credits ? – SAFAD Jul 9 '11 at 6:09
I'm not certain. The OSD is just that, a definition. It is not a legal document. If there actually exists a license that uses this particular clause, it will be listed on this list. If you can't find one that suits your needs, you can write your own. Most of the licenses you see on the list were originally project-specific. – Zhehao Mao Jul 9 '11 at 14:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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