Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Eliah_Lakhin 699 days ago
You can publish your project under your own licensing terms. In your license, you can prohibit the creation of derivative works based on your source code, except for building executables for personal use, provided your clients obtain a commercial license from you. This way, GitHub users can audit and fork your repository, but they won't be able to sell your software under their own terms.

I'm not a lawyer, and it's generally a good idea to consult a specialist when drafting licensing terms. However, in my personal opinion, it's often better to draft a project-specific license yourself to start, rather than using a popular open-source license, most of which are not aligned with typical commercialization goals.
1 comments
sebestindragos 699 days ago
That's an interesting idea, but wouldn't it be seen as a bit of a red flag? I thought most devs if they see a license other than MIT they will frown upon it :)
link
Eliah_Lakhin 699 days ago
On a more general note, it's often challenging to sell anything to the software developer community, regardless of the licensing terms you choose. I believe you'll gain commercial traction only if your product is closer to the real market. In this sense, using the MIT license may expose your project to the risks you mentioned.

As for community feedback, it doesn't necessarily have to be negative. Recently, I published my project under a non-standard license and received generally positive feedback[1], despite my project being in a very niche field.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40747845

link
sebestindragos 699 days ago
makes sense, thanks a lot for your advice.
link