Iβve been researching about licenses for a while. At first look, open source licenses seems to be a good idea: collaborative work, made for and by the community. The problem is that modification and distribution of the software are generally "all allowed", so it can cause some problems like scattering of efforts, security issues and sometimes conduct to the disruption of the project.
So, go to a proprietary license, you might say. Right, but in this case, modification and distribution of the software are not allowed. If I publish my source code, nobody else can help me to develop the project.
Or, I need to write myself a custom licence. But I'm a developer, not a lawyer. I would like to use an existing license that allows people to contribute but prevents issues related to open source. But it doesn't exist. My feeling is that there's no middle, just "All closed" or "All open". I think we should make the middle.
That's why I made the "Restricted Modification and Distribution Software License". This license is intended for projects that require collaboration, while maintaining control over the distribution and modification of the software.
So, what de you think? Are you interested in using this license for your projects?
Here is the license text: The "Restricted Modification and Distribution Software License"
submitted by /u/hugocoll1n
[link] [comments]
from Software Development – methodologies, techniques, and tools. Covering Agile, RUP, Waterfall + more! https://ift.tt/P2XEjZa