Why do you want to do that? It is not in the open-source spirit! Even the GPL allows and even encourages commercial vendors to distribute free (open-source) software for a fee. A large amount of open-source software is produced commercially (many contributions to Linux, GNOME, KDE...), which wouldn't have been possible with such a clause.
[CodePlex is Microsoft's open-source project hosting site: its equivalent of Sourceforge, Google Code, Savannah, Launchpad etc. The website says it supports the following licenses:
Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License.
Let me explain the "three levels" of open-source licenses using Dave Johnson's words:
Level 1: Gimme credit (Apache License, BSD, MIT) You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me credit.
Level 2: Gimme fixes (Mozilla Public License, CDDL, LGPL) You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me the source for any fixes you make to it.
Level 3: Gimme it ALL! (GPL) You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me your entire product's source code.
The first two levels allow companies to make proprietary (non open-source) derivatives from your code; I don't like them. The GPL ("copyleft") forces them to release their source code (only applies if they distribute their product; nothing prevents them from using the software internally for their own use — and that's a good thing). If you want to avoid feeling "ripped-off" by a commercial company "stealing" your code, the GPL is what you should use. They can make improvements to it, but the improvements will be available to everyone.
Note that none of this prevents a company from contacting you separately and getting your code under a non-GPL license — you can charge them a fee to allow them to make a proprietary derivative of your code, if you want. (As long as your code is entirely yours to give away, of course.)
谢谢，如果你限制代码的商业用途，你就会鼓励免费的开源项目，这是我最初的想法，但现在我会考虑使用 Mozilla 公共许可证。
Thanks, if you restric commercial use of the code you will encourage free open source projects that was my initial thoughts but now i will consider going with the Mozilla Public License.
发布评论
评论（2）
你为什么要这么做？ 这不符合开源精神！ 即使是 GPL 允许 和 甚至鼓励商业供应商付费分发免费（开源）软件。 大量的开源软件是商业化生产的（许多对 Linux、GNOME、KDE...的贡献），如果有这样的条款，这是不可能的。
[CodePlex 是 Microsoft 的开源项目托管站点：相当于 Sourceforge、Google Code、Savannah、 Launchpad 等。网站表示支持以下许可证：
of which the ones starting with "Microsoft" may actually be more restrictive than "open-source".
让我用 Dave Johnson 的话解释开源许可证的“三个级别”：
您可以在您的产品中使用、修改和重新分发我的代码，但请给予我信任。
您可以在您的产品中使用、修改和重新分发我的代码，但请向我提供您对其进行的任何修复的源代码。
您可以在您的产品中使用、修改和重新分发我的代码，但请向我提供您整个产品的源代码。
前两个级别允许公司从您的代码制作专有（非开源）衍生品； 我不喜欢他们。 GPL（“copyleft”）迫使他们发布源代码（仅适用于他们分发其产品的情况；没有什么可以阻止他们在内部使用该软件供自己使用 - 这是一件好事）。 如果您想避免被商业公司“窃取”您的代码而感到“被敲诈”，那么您应该使用 GPL。 他们可以对其进行改进，但这些改进将提供给每个人。
请注意，这一切都不会阻止公司单独联系您并根据非 GPL 许可证获取您的代码 - 如果您愿意，您可以向他们收取费用，以允许他们制作您的代码的专有衍生品。 （当然，只要您的代码完全属于您，可以免费赠送。）
Why do you want to do that? It is not in the open-source spirit! Even the GPL allows and even encourages commercial vendors to distribute free (open-source) software for a fee. A large amount of open-source software is produced commercially (many contributions to Linux, GNOME, KDE...), which wouldn't have been possible with such a clause.
[CodePlex is Microsoft's open-source project hosting site: its equivalent of Sourceforge, Google Code, Savannah, Launchpad etc. The website says it supports the following licenses:
of which the ones starting with "Microsoft" may actually be more restrictive than "open-source".
Let me explain the "three levels" of open-source licenses using Dave Johnson's words:
You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me credit.
You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me the source for any fixes you make to it.
You can use, modify and redistribute my code in your product but give me your entire product's source code.
The first two levels allow companies to make proprietary (non open-source) derivatives from your code; I don't like them. The GPL ("copyleft") forces them to release their source code (only applies if they distribute their product; nothing prevents them from using the software internally for their own use — and that's a good thing). If you want to avoid feeling "ripped-off" by a commercial company "stealing" your code, the GPL is what you should use. They can make improvements to it, but the improvements will be available to everyone.
Note that none of this prevents a company from contacting you separately and getting your code under a non-GPL license — you can charge them a fee to allow them to make a proprietary derivative of your code, if you want. (As long as your code is entirely yours to give away, of course.)
谢谢，如果你限制代码的商业用途，你就会鼓励免费的开源项目，这是我最初的想法，但现在我会考虑使用 Mozilla 公共许可证。
Thanks, if you restric commercial use of the code you will encourage free open source projects that was my initial thoughts but now i will consider going with the Mozilla Public License.