Searching license to allow commercial use but not selling I'm currently distributing my software to create websites under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license. Now some people are selling my software as it is, which is allowed by this license. I don't like that users are paying for software to people who didn't made it and which is available for free. If I would switch to the non-commercial version of CC-BY-SA 4.0, this would also forbid companies to use my software for their business website, wouldn't it? I'd be happy about tips which license I could use for my software to allow commercial use but not selling it. Thanks for your answers!
The CC license scheme has a limited set of combinable menu items, where certain conditions are encoded with specific language in the license. In CC-BY-NC this involves a definition: NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange. Let's say that this is an accounting program, and businesses would use it to gain a commercial advantage (e.g. not having to spend capital on a fancy paid program, reduce expenses owing to the need to hire additional bookkeeping staff). Such a use could be considered "Commercial" (would not be NonCommercial). If I were to use the program for household bookkeeping, since I am not engaged in commerce, I do not gain compensation or commercial advantage. And even if I happen to run a craft side business with a couple of sales every year, my use is primarily intended to be for personal convenience. At the end, they modify NonCommercial more narrowly, saying that you can "sell" the software using not money, but other copyrighted material – so a program-for-program exchange is allowed. Then there is the License Grant: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only. There does not exist a CC license specifically tailored to allowing "use in business" but excluding "sale of copies". In order to do that, you would have to write your own license (or hire an attorney to do that), and then you would have to distribute the work with that license. Another approach is to model the license based on the StackExchange TOS. There is a superficial problem (in this q&amp;a, which I expect will eventually disappear, and also raised here), that the SE TOS seems contradictory, by saying that material is licenses under CC-SA terms, but then the terms are made more restrictive (which contradicts the CC-SA license). The SE license containse in §13 a merger clause: This Agreement (including the Privacy Policy), as modified from time to time, constitutes the entire agreement between You, the Network and Stack Exchange with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement replaces all prior or contemporaneous understandings or agreements, written or oral, regarding the subject matter hereof. When there is an apparent conflict, the SE terms win (as far as I can see). Therefore you might include an overriding provision in your license, which says something like "sale of the content is forbidden, but use in business is allowed" (don't use that literally). Your attorney (get one) could professionally advise you as to the most efficient way to get what you want. A remote third option is to explain to the CC people what you want, and maybe they would be willing to create a new license parameter.
The starting point is whether you infringe copyright by downloading or using the cracked software. The licence you purchase relates to a specific copy of the software. The licence almost certainly does not say 'You can use any copy of this software.' It will usually say something like 'You may install this software', surrounded by other language that makes it clear that 'software' refers to a specific copy. E.g. the Windows 7 EULA says 'you may install one copy of the software on one computer' and, in another place, says 'By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit.' Nothing in that licence allows you to download an infringing copy of Windows from elsewhere and apply your licence to that copy. In the case of Windows, you don't have a licence to run 'Windows', you have a licence to run a specific copy of Windows. Therefore, even though you have purchased a licence, you would not have a licence for the cracked copy. Running a computer program inherently requires you to make copies of it in memory. In the absence of a copyright licence, this is copyright infringement: MAI Systems Corp v. Peak Computer Inc (1993) 991 F.2d 511 (defendant, who was not a licensee in relation to software, ran software and in doing so created copies of the software in memory; the person was purportedly authorised by a licensee to do so, but the licensee did not have the right to so authorise the defendant). In some jurisdictions, there is legislation to permit non-licensees to run software without infringing copyright, but these provisions (at least the ones in the US and Australia) don't apply to copies of the program which are themselves infringing copies. See 17 USC 117(a) and section 47B of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Now, supposing you do infringe copyright, the question of whether that is a criminal act will depend on the jurisdiction and the other facts of the case. In Australia, downloading or using software is almost never a criminal act (offences under the Copyright Act require trade in infringing copies or commercial scale, etc). In the US, infringing copyright for commercial gain (e.g. if the software is for use in a business) or of particularly expensive software might be criminal under the No Electronic Theft Act. Furthermore, downloading the 'cracked' software may make one complicit in the distributor's offending, specifically by way of 'counselling and procuring' or 'conspiracy'. The distributor's offending may include the kind of commercial copyright infringement that is criminalised.
Being or not being open source makes fairly little difference in trademark law. If a commercial firm (Yoyodyne, say) had used the name &quot;Portable Network Graphics&quot; and the abbreviation &quot;PNG&quot; in trade, and taken such further steps as would be needed to protect it in the relevant countries, that firm would have a protectable trademark. Note that in some countries, a trademark must be registered to have any protection at all (much of the EU follows this rule). In others, use in commerce can offer some protection even without registration (the US follows this rule). Had this happened (in an alternate reality) Yoyodyne could have sent a cease and desist letter when open source developers started using the mark. If the devs did not cease, Yoyodyne might have obtained an injunction, or damages for trademark infringement, or both. They could also have issued a takedown notie to the site hosting the project. But had Yoyodyne failed to defend the mark effectively and allowed it to become generic, Yoyodyne might have lost all rights to it. Also, had Yoyodyne ceased to use it in trade for a significant period, they might have lost rights. This is a place where the different laws in different countries might lead to different results. Note that &quot;Portable Network Graphics&quot; is rather descriptive, and not particularly distinctive. Descriptive marks, like &quot;Tasty Pizza&quot; generally get weaker protection, while more distinctive marks, such as &quot;LuAnn's Tastee Pizza&quot; are more strongly protected, in general. Again this depends on the country, and the specific facts. In general the first to use, or to register a mark, gets the rights. When one entity is the first to use, but a different one is first to register, things can get confusing, and results will be different in different countries. Note that a Cease and Desist letter is not a legal requirement. It is a threat of possible future legal action, and often an offer to avoid such action if the recipient does as the sender requests. The recipient can comply with the letter, wait for court action, or try to make some sort of compromise deal. Open source projects, as other answers suggest, often choose to comply.
It is illegal to make copies of copyrighted materials without license. In the case of software, obviously it will be illegal to make copies by copying and installing the software without a license, but we are not talking about that. If I have a legitimate license of say Photoshop, and I start the application, parts or all of the code will be loaded into the RAM of my computer, which is a copy. According to copyright law, it is legal for me to make that copy. You are allowed to copy legitimately owned software into RAM to execute it. If your copy of Photoshop is illegal, and you start the application, the copy that is made into RAM is again copyright infringement. Having read the software license for the software that you get when you buy a Mac, it seems that if you steal my computer and just start the operating system, you are committing copyright infringement, and it seems that if you buy such a stolen computer and just start the operating system, you are committing copyright infringement as well, because the license that I received when I purchased the computer covers anyone using it with my permission, and covers anyone who legally buys the computer from me, but doesn't cover a thief. Now does this affect the work that you did? No, you have the full copyright on your work. Copyright law doesn't require that your tools are all used legitimately.
That is not really a &quot;global license deal&quot;. You can try to attach strings to your US deal that makes you money when the US licensee sells out of the US. It is not typical and you may or may not have the leverage to get that agreement. Since you have no IP outside the US you can’t keep third parties from competing with them so it might not be good business for them. Also the SCOTUS has ruled that a contract licensing a U.S. patent can’t include royalties after the patent expires. In the past people negotiated deals where the royalties dropped in half (for example) after a patent expired. Although freely contracted and making business sense to the parties these royalties are not enforceable as a matter of public policy. It is possible that there may be a prohibition on contracted royalties where no IP exists. However you can license know-how, trademarks etc. independent of the term or existence of a patent.
The Stack Exchange "requirement" of a particular type of attribution is unlikely to be enforceable, given the terms of the CC BY-SA license. The actual Creative Commons license, the part that governs the relationship between the parties, is the "legal code" license agreement. The CC BY-SA agreement contains two clauses relevant to the form of attribution. One, as the question points out, is paragraph 4(c), which states that "credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner." This language is much less restrictive than the StackExchange blog post. The other relevant clause is the last clause of the agreement, paragraph 8(e), which is a standard integration clause: This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. In other words, any changes to the license, which would include any additional restrictions on the nature of the attribution that may be given (besides the "reasonable manner" specified in the license) are effective only if both parties agree to do so in writing. The specific law applied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction is going to vary, but in general, in the United States, when you have a fully integrated agreement such as this license, a court will not look at anything outside the four corners of the agreement to determine the parties' rights and duties. If a court finds this to be a fully integrated agreement, and refuses to consider "parol evidence," meaning statements outside of the contract, then StackExchange can post a page asking people to attribute content in a particular way, but no, they cannot require it.
You can license the use of your IP only for certain uses, for example (most commonly) &quot;non-commercial&quot;. The general template of permission is &quot;You have permission to ___ as long as you ___&quot;. What the user is permitted to do, in your scheme, is something along the lines of &quot;only distribute the output in this manner&quot;, or &quot;not distribute code developed with this tool anywhere else&quot;. It's up to you to prove that someone violated that condition, if they did.
No, CC does not replace copyright. A creative commons license is one way to use the copyright that you already have the moment you make an original creative work. Without a copyright, a creative commons license does nothing. You don't need to do anything to get a copyright. However if you plan to exploit a work commercially, or want to be sure that it is well protected, you can gain additional protection in the US and some other countries by registering the copyright. US registration can be done online at this page. The benefits of US registration are described on this page. Nor do you need to "file for" a Creative Commons license. by publishing or distributing a work with an indication that it is subject to a creative commons license, you have released it under that license and anyone may thereafter use it subject to the terms of that license. This is done with a statement such as "Released under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 license." Such a statement is often placed near the (optional but strongly recommended) copyright notice, but that is not required. if you wish to specify the form of attribution (for example to a specified pseudonym) or a URL to use in providing attribution, that should ideally be placed near the license statement. If the work carries a list of credits, those may be placed nearby as well, but need not be.