If you think that you can drop that requirement the best choice is LGPL and additional requirement that people must give you credit (you will have to define what type of attribution/credit do you want per different uses)
As James stated in previous comment:
Forks very rarely happen
It is very hard to fork a (big) project
You can benefit more if there are forks - you can take the good ideas from the fork and leave the bad. That way the better judgement about features/code will eventually win (which is part of the idea of Open Source)
Forking a new project out of my existing source code should not be allowed. I want people to be able to use it and even modify it, but not clone a new similar product to compete against my existing product.
Ummm ... This is I have never heard of in a Open Source license, and I don't know of any that have this. How would you even word it? Determining the difference between a fork and someone else who has taken your code and just added a patch would be really hard.
Can you think about this one? Forks very rarely happen, and when they do they aren't always competition. Talent, ideas and even code can flow between the forks freely.
More specifically I think the GPU Lesser Public License might suit the needs of your library. Keeping in mind that like (all?) open source licenses, LGPL allows forking.
发布评论
评论（4）
以上与开源思想（允许/鼓励分叉）相冲突。更多信息请参见：哪个开源许可证没有分叉
如果您认为你可以放弃这个要求，最好的选择是 LGPL 和人们必须给你信用的附加要求（你必须根据不同的用途定义你想要什么类型的归属/信用）
正如 James 在之前的评论中所说：
Above is in conflict with Open Source idea (which allows/encourages forking). More info here: Which open source license has no forking
If you think that you can drop that requirement the best choice is LGPL and additional requirement that people must give you credit (you will have to define what type of attribution/credit do you want per different uses)
As James stated in previous comment:
嗯……这是我在开源许可证中从未听说过的，而且我不知道有任何这样的许可证。你会怎么说呢？确定一个分叉和其他人拿走了你的代码并只是添加了补丁之间的区别是非常困难的。
你能考虑一下这个吗？分叉很少发生，而且即使发生也并不总是竞争。人才、想法甚至代码都可以在分叉之间自由流动。
Ummm ... This is I have never heard of in a Open Source license, and I don't know of any that have this. How would you even word it? Determining the difference between a fork and someone else who has taken your code and just added a patch would be really hard.
Can you think about this one? Forks very rarely happen, and when they do they aren't always competition. Talent, ideas and even code can flow between the forks freely.
您需要咨询律师，我们不是律师，不知道您的申请。
正如 James 所说，防止使用开源许可证进行分叉是很复杂的。
对于商业应用程序，您可能需要考虑双重许可。
据我所知 LGPL 允许分叉。
You need to speak to a lawyer, we aren't lawyers and don't know your application.
Prevention of forking with open source licenses is complicated, as James says.
For commercial applications, you may want to look at dual licensing.
As far as I know the LGPL allows forks.
您应该能够在这里找到适合您需求的一个：
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Comparison_of_free_software_licenses
更具体地说，我认为 GPU 较小公共许可证可能适合您的图书馆的需求。请记住，像（所有？）开源许可证一样，LGPL 允许分叉。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License
You should be able to find one to suit your needs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses
More specifically I think the GPU Lesser Public License might suit the needs of your library. Keeping in mind that like (all?) open source licenses, LGPL allows forking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License