Which open source license has no forking?

First thing which comes to my mind is CC-ND: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0.

Note that this is not an Open Source license by the OSI definition, and it's not on the list that you quote. The list itself is CC-licensed so the omission is not because OSI is unaware of the CC family of licenses. – MSalters Oct 15 '10 at 7:58.

I suspect that you're embarking on a doomed quest here, given that item 3 of the OSI definition of an open source license seems to explicitly prohibit a clause that would prevent forking.

By definition Open Source allow fork: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_defini... A license that didn't allow forking isn't an Open Source license.

1 It's defenition of FSF. You, as an author, have the right to have your own opinion of "what is open source software" and which rights you grant to the end users. – BarsMonster Oct 13 '10 at 11:33 2 Berming specifically invoked the OSI which has a very specific definition.

– JUST MY correct OPINION Oct 13 '10 at 11:34 The one I'm talking about was already approved by the OSI, so I know for fact that one already exists. – Berming Oct 13 '10 at 11:36 @Berming really surprising! Waiting for the proof ... – Alois Cochard Oct 13 '10 at 11:40 Yeah, I was surprised too when I read about it.

Wish I had bookmarked it. – Berming Oct 13 '10 at 11:52.

Probably the only thing you can do is just use some trickery, like manipulate your trademark policy and the code well enough to effectively prevent a fork. And as was mentioned, doing this in the license will technically make it no longer free software.

If what you are making is a tool, like a compiler or a unit test harness, then GPL would work.

If what you are making is a tool, like a compiler or a unit test harness, then GPL would work. If it is a component or a whole app (whose purpose is to use the app and incorporate changes into it, like a customizable blog or a calendar component), then LGPL is better.

LGPL will let the binary of your project to be used with closed source projects, but require changes to your program's source to be made public.

– QAH Sep 15 '09 at 2:50 1 @QAH It's not really possible to allow people to use it in a product they sell if they aren't allow to sell it. LGPL get's you pretty close though. – arbales Sep 15 '09 at 2:56 LGPL permits unmodified versions of your binaries to be distributed/sold with closed source commercial apps.

As far as I understand, if they modify your program's source code, then they must release the modified version of your program's code (but their own program can still remain closed source). – Imran Sep 15 '09 at 2:57 1 GPL and LGPL allow such licensed code to be sold for money, and there are companies who do this, e.g. Red Hat. – Bill Karwin Sep 15 '09 at 3:17.

I do not know of any existing license that draws the incredibly subtle distiction between "can be used commercially: yes" and "can be resold for a price: no" -- most non-lawyers would perceive "sold for a price" and "used commercially" to be very VERY close indeed! -) I have no ideas how lawyers would spin the subtle thread -- depends on how much you're paying them for this purpose, I guess;-).

Your "no redistribution for a price" clause is going to be very difficult to satisfy; I'm not entirely certain what it means, given that you want to allow commercial use, and restricting others from redistributing for a price goes against the first clause of the OSI's Open Source Definition, so by that definition, no open source license could meet your criteria. If you do want to try to find a license that meets your exact criteria, then GNU has a pretty comprehensive list of licenses and their individual quirks. However, I'd recommend instead taking one of the major licenses (Apache, GPL, or LGPL) that matches your general philosophy and going with it, even if it doesn't match your exact criteria.By doing so, you'll get a stronger and more widely understood license for your project, and you'll be doing your bit against license proliferation.

See here for a good discussion of these major licenses' general philosophies and why license proliferation can be a bad thing.

GNU Lesser General Public License is right for you.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.