As the Open-Source-definition describes, you cannot limit the usage of your project, if you want to stay open-source. In other words: you cannot forbid a commercial use for an open-source-app. So you can choose another (non-open-source) license, that fulfills your demands, or you choose another way.
One possibility is to release only the source under open-source-license and have another license for binary distributions. As far as I know thats true for Java. That works good, if the build of your app is somewhat complicated.
You can release your app under the GPL-license. That does not forbid commercial use. But if some derivate work is created, it has to be GPL-licensed too. That works well for libraries or similar stuff that isn't used alone, but in a merged product. EDIT: As DrJokepu mentions, using a GPL-framework in a webserver-stack would help to avoid to release your own sources. That's why one extension to the GPL is the Affero GPL, that need you to release your work under the same license (AGPL) even if you don't release it, but only use it to build a public webpage. So for webservices you need the AGPL to achieve the same result.
You can't us an OSI-certified Open Source license and ban commercial use.
If what you want to do is stop somebody from taking your software and selling their version as some sort of shrink-wrapped software, you can use a GPL-style license. For maximum compatibility, I'd recommend GPLv2+ (Gnu General Public License, version 2, or any later version at your discretion). With that license, somebody can sell your software, but they have to make it clear that anybody can get the source, and that it can be freely redistributed. That would, I think, cover most of what people want to ban as commercial use.
现在，代码如何保持封闭和出售，以及在 GPL 许可下发布？整个安排中令人费解的法律部分是，对基金会的知识产权贡献不是在 GPL 许可下进行的。相反，开发人员根据“贡献者协议”将其知识产权交给基金会，该协议将其更改的版权传递给基金会，并允许基金会根据两种不同的许可证发布代码。最后一个小警告是双重许可的一大缺点，有时开发人员对贡献者协议不感兴趣，他们希望只有在开源许可下才可以进行更改，而不是其他任何东西。有相当多的贡献者协议，但是 这是 sun 用于 MySQL 的协议。
The producing open-source software book has a great section on dual licensing. It outlines the approach where a single entity, such as a foundation "owns" the copyright to a projects source.
The foundation chooses to make the source available under two different licensing schemes, one closed and another that is open-source. For your particular case you will want to ensure that you stick with a strong copyleft license (i.e. such as GPL) to prevent commercial derivative works of the freely available source code.
However, as others have noted, this does not prevent commercial entities from using your software, just from taking your work and selling it to others. In some cases this works out, as strangely enough, many organisations would rather purchase something than download and use something for free. These are the same sorts of organisations that need legally binding contracts with vendors and some form of support. I.e. When you sell software you are actually selling a whole bunch of other services at the same time as a "shrink wrapped" product.
Now, how can code be kept closed and sold, as well as released under the GPL license? The mind bending legal part of the whole arrangement, is that contributions of IP to the foundation are not made under the GPL license. Rather, developers give their IP to the foundation under "contributor agreements" which pass on copyright of their changes to the foundation and permit the foundation to release the code under two different licenses. This last little caveat is the big downside to dual licensing, sometimes developers are not interested in contributor agreements, they want there changes only available under the open-source license and nothing else. Quite a few contributor agreements that kick around the place, but here is the one that sun uses for MySQL.
发布评论
评论（3）
正如开源定义所述，如果您想保持开源，则不能限制项目的使用。换句话说：您不能禁止开源应用程序的商业用途。因此，您可以选择另一个满足您需求的（非开源）许可证，或者您选择其他方式。
一种可能性是仅根据开源许可证发布源代码，并拥有另一个二进制发行版许可证。据我所知，Java 确实如此。如果您的应用程序的构建有些复杂，那么这很有效。
您可以根据 GPL 许可证发布您的应用程序。这并不禁止商业用途。但如果创建了一些衍生作品，它也必须获得 GPL 许可。这对于不单独使用而是在合并产品中使用的库或类似内容非常有效。 编辑：正如 DrJokepu 提到的，在网络服务器堆栈中使用 GPL 框架将有助于避免发布您自己的源代码。这就是为什么 Affero GPL 是 GPL 的扩展之一，它需要您在同一许可证 (AGPL) 下发布您的作品，即使您不发布它，而仅使用它来构建公共网页。因此，对于 Web 服务，您需要 AGPL 才能达到相同的结果。
As the Open-Source-definition describes, you cannot limit the usage of your project, if you want to stay open-source. In other words: you cannot forbid a commercial use for an open-source-app. So you can choose another (non-open-source) license, that fulfills your demands, or you choose another way.
One possibility is to release only the source under open-source-license and have another license for binary distributions. As far as I know thats true for Java. That works good, if the build of your app is somewhat complicated.
You can release your app under the GPL-license. That does not forbid commercial use. But if some derivate work is created, it has to be GPL-licensed too. That works well for libraries or similar stuff that isn't used alone, but in a merged product. EDIT: As DrJokepu mentions, using a GPL-framework in a webserver-stack would help to avoid to release your own sources. That's why one extension to the GPL is the Affero GPL, that need you to release your work under the same license (AGPL) even if you don't release it, but only use it to build a public webpage. So for webservices you need the AGPL to achieve the same result.
您不能在使用 OSI 认证的开源许可证的同时禁止商业用途。
如果您想要阻止某人获取您的软件并将其版本作为某种收缩包装软件出售，您可以使用 GPL 风格的许可证。为了获得最大的兼容性，我建议使用 GPLv2+（Gnu 通用公共许可证，版本 2，或由您自行决定的任何更高版本）。有了该许可证，有人就可以出售您的软件，但他们必须明确表示任何人都可以获得源代码，并且可以自由地重新分发。我认为，这将涵盖人们想要禁止的大部分商业用途。
You can't us an OSI-certified Open Source license and ban commercial use.
If what you want to do is stop somebody from taking your software and selling their version as some sort of shrink-wrapped software, you can use a GPL-style license. For maximum compatibility, I'd recommend GPLv2+ (Gnu General Public License, version 2, or any later version at your discretion). With that license, somebody can sell your software, but they have to make it clear that anybody can get the source, and that it can be freely redistributed. That would, I think, cover most of what people want to ban as commercial use.
制作开源软件的书中有一个关于双重许可的精彩部分。它概述了单个实体（例如基金会）“拥有”项目源的版权的方法。
该基金会选择在两种不同的许可方案下提供源代码，一种是封闭的，另一种是开源的。对于您的特定情况，您需要确保坚持使用强大的 copyleft 许可证（即作为 GPL），以防止自由地进行商业衍生作品可用的源代码。
然而，正如其他人指出的那样，这并不能阻止商业实体使用您的软件，而只是阻止商业实体将您的作品出售给其他人。在某些情况下，这种情况很奇怪，许多组织宁愿购买某些东西，也不愿免费下载和使用某些东西。这些组织需要与供应商签订具有法律约束力的合同和某种形式的支持。也就是说，当您销售软件时，您实际上是在销售“收缩包装”产品的同时销售一大堆其他服务。
现在，代码如何保持封闭和出售，以及在 GPL 许可下发布？整个安排中令人费解的法律部分是，对基金会的知识产权贡献不是在 GPL 许可下进行的。相反，开发人员根据“贡献者协议”将其知识产权交给基金会，该协议将其更改的版权传递给基金会，并允许基金会根据两种不同的许可证发布代码。最后一个小警告是双重许可的一大缺点，有时开发人员对贡献者协议不感兴趣，他们希望只有在开源许可下才可以进行更改，而不是其他任何东西。有相当多的贡献者协议，但是 这是 sun 用于 MySQL 的协议。
The producing open-source software book has a great section on dual licensing. It outlines the approach where a single entity, such as a foundation "owns" the copyright to a projects source.
The foundation chooses to make the source available under two different licensing schemes, one closed and another that is open-source. For your particular case you will want to ensure that you stick with a strong copyleft license (i.e. such as GPL) to prevent commercial derivative works of the freely available source code.
However, as others have noted, this does not prevent commercial entities from using your software, just from taking your work and selling it to others. In some cases this works out, as strangely enough, many organisations would rather purchase something than download and use something for free. These are the same sorts of organisations that need legally binding contracts with vendors and some form of support. I.e. When you sell software you are actually selling a whole bunch of other services at the same time as a "shrink wrapped" product.
Now, how can code be kept closed and sold, as well as released under the GPL license? The mind bending legal part of the whole arrangement, is that contributions of IP to the foundation are not made under the GPL license. Rather, developers give their IP to the foundation under "contributor agreements" which pass on copyright of their changes to the foundation and permit the foundation to release the code under two different licenses. This last little caveat is the big downside to dual licensing, sometimes developers are not interested in contributor agreements, they want there changes only available under the open-source license and nothing else. Quite a few contributor agreements that kick around the place, but here is the one that sun uses for MySQL.