On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 21:36:42 +0000, Paulo Henrique Torrens <paulo_torr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > but... I'm not sure in which kind of licence the "main" module would > fit on, because I want a LGPL-like thing, with one restriction: no > derivatives.
Obviously, controlling other people's behavior to that extent is outside of the bounds of free software. No derivatives means that basically no modified version of your program can be distributed by anyone other than yourself. Basically that has a proprietary flavor to it. There has been some "open source" software like this (the Pine e-mail program from University of Washington comes to mind as a notable example: check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_%28email_client%29#Licensing_and_clones ) I think you have to clearly articulate what it is really that you don't want people doing with the program (once it materializes). "Derivatives" means more than one kind of thing. For instance, suppose I like some module in your program and want to use it in my program. That's one kind of a derivative: a piece of your program is used, but that piece loses its original identity as being part of that program. We can do that with the GPL. I can take a small piece of some GPL-ed program and use it in another GPL-ed program. Then there are derivatives which are forks of your actual project. Someone makes a patch, but instead of having you release it, they make an independent release. Is that so bad, and what do you stand to lose? Look at it this way: if other people take over the project, it's free work! They fix the bugs, and extend it, yet your name is all over it, so essentially you take all the credit (think Linus Torvalds). Other people are toiling away in the code base, while you travel around and give talks. Or engage customers in support contracts. :) Take it easy ...