Having a noncommercial clause is against the spirit of opensource. So no, there isn't. And if you do make one yourself then you should not be calling it opensource but instead call it a non-commercial license.
There are in fact code with the kind of licensing you are talking about and there are widely recognised by the opensource community as being non-opensource. MINIX (by Tanenbaum) is one of them. The code is freely available and public and anyone can see but have severe restrictions on re-publishing modifications. MINIX is widely considered to be a closed-source piece of code.
Lots of commercial, proprietay, closed-source embedded operating systems are actually distributed as code and have only copyright laws protecting them (instead of complex, byzantine DRM). Just the fact that people can see your source code does not make it open source.
One last example. Windows (including XP, Vista and Seven). Microsoft makes the source code Windows available to anyone who needs it for non-commercial, educational purposes provided you sign an NDA. Their source license sounds a lot like what you want. Check out the license here: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/basics/wrklicense.mspx. I doubt anyone would argue that Windows is opensource.
请注意，开放软件中的几乎所有参与者都使用符合 OSI 的许可证 - 您将完全违背所有当前的观点和实践。
You can publish code under any licence you want but it will only be F/OSS, Open Source, if it complies with the OSI definition : http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. Your conditions are incompatible in several ways.
Take note that almost all players in Open Software use OSI-compliant licences - you would be going completely against all current opinion and practice.
发布评论
评论（2）
拥有非商业条款违背了开源精神。所以不，没有。如果您自己制作一个，那么您不应该将其称为开源，而应将其称为非商业许可证。
事实上，有些代码具有您所讨论的许可类型，并且被开源社区广泛认为是非开源的。 MINIX（由 Tanenbaum 设计）就是其中之一。该代码是免费且公开的，任何人都可以看到，但对重新发布修改有严格的限制。 MINIX 被广泛认为是一段闭源代码。
许多商业、专有、闭源嵌入式操作系统实际上是作为代码分发的，并且只有版权法保护它们（而不是复杂的、拜占庭式的 DRM）。人们可以看到您的源代码这一事实并不意味着它是开源的。
最后一个例子。 Windows（包括 XP、Vista 和 7）。只要您签署保密协议，Microsoft 就会向任何出于非商业、教育目的需要的人提供 Windows 源代码。他们的源许可证听起来很像你想要的。在此处查看许可证：http://www.microsoft.com/resources /sharedsource/licensing/basics/wrklicense.mspx。我怀疑有人会认为 Windows 是开源的。
Having a noncommercial clause is against the spirit of opensource. So no, there isn't. And if you do make one yourself then you should not be calling it opensource but instead call it a non-commercial license.
There are in fact code with the kind of licensing you are talking about and there are widely recognised by the opensource community as being non-opensource. MINIX (by Tanenbaum) is one of them. The code is freely available and public and anyone can see but have severe restrictions on re-publishing modifications. MINIX is widely considered to be a closed-source piece of code.
Lots of commercial, proprietay, closed-source embedded operating systems are actually distributed as code and have only copyright laws protecting them (instead of complex, byzantine DRM). Just the fact that people can see your source code does not make it open source.
One last example. Windows (including XP, Vista and Seven). Microsoft makes the source code Windows available to anyone who needs it for non-commercial, educational purposes provided you sign an NDA. Their source license sounds a lot like what you want. Check out the license here: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/basics/wrklicense.mspx. I doubt anyone would argue that Windows is opensource.
您可以在任何您想要的许可证下发布代码，但它只能是 F/OSS，开源，如果它符合 OSI 定义：http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd。你们的条件在很多方面都不相容。
请注意，开放软件中的几乎所有参与者都使用符合 OSI 的许可证 - 您将完全违背所有当前的观点和实践。
You can publish code under any licence you want but it will only be F/OSS, Open Source, if it complies with the OSI definition : http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. Your conditions are incompatible in several ways.
Take note that almost all players in Open Software use OSI-compliant licences - you would be going completely against all current opinion and practice.