A license which grants the copyright holder full rights on any derivatives?

[Zephilinox]

I don't know if such a license is practical or desirable in general, but it would mean that a project under such a license can benefit from derivative works.

Looking at e.g. the non-commercial license the concern would be that contributors to such a project would be contributing code under that license. While the original copyright holder could normally continue to use their project commercially, the contributors would need to explicitly sign an agreement (such as https://github.com/indieopensource/tiny-cla/releases/tag/v1.0.0) that allows for their contribution to be used under any terms the original copyright holder wants (including commercial), otherwise the original creators can't use it commercially as they are no longer the sole copyright holders.

This is a common thing that open-source projects deal with, but it doesn't handle derivatives. If someone modifies a non-commercial project and distributes the derivative source code, the original copyright holder can't use those modifications in their project.

A license that would allow derivative works to be relicensed under any terms by the original copyright holder would mean that there's no need for contributors to sign an agreement, and that modifications in derivative works can be used in the original project. (unclear what that means if someone makes a derivative of a derivative)

Whether those derivative works must distribute their modifications is a separate concern (and even if this was specified in a license, it's unclear if "software" means source-code or executable, i.e. would they need to share the source code if they only distribute the compiled application)

[devsrealm]

Any comments on this? I am planning to adopt the non-commercial license but I am concerned by what @Zephilinox had stated above

[kemitchell]

We don't currently offer any licenses with this feature.

If the concern is being able to incorporate others' contributions back into the original project, the typical approach is share-alike. Those licenses have existed for a long time in software, as copyleft, and we didn't feel a need to add more of them through PolyForm.

There are some examples of even long-approved open source copyleft licenses requiring contribution and licensing back to the maintainer. All the version of the Reciprocal Public License I'm aware of have that feature. But it's relatively uncommon in public license terms.

Have you seen an example of a noncommercial license with a requirement to license back to the original developer for some other kind of work, like music or artwork?

[Zephilinox]

typical approach is share-alike

share-alike is great :) but I don't think it would work for this particular usecase. Distributing changes under the original license, when that license is non-commercial, doesn't allow those changes to be made for commercial use.

Have you seen an example of a noncommercial license with a requirement to license back to the original developer

I'm not familiar with that kind of work, but it's not something I've seen

Reciprocal Public License

I wasn't aware of this license, it sounds pretty close! it doesn't enforce non-commercial use though.

Further, under the RPL all components you author including schemas, scripts,
source code, etc. -- regardless of whether they're compiled into a single
binary or used as two halves of client/server application -- must be shared.
You have to share the whole pie, not an isolated slice of it.

I would be concerned here about art and music for a game, as those would ideally be covered by a different license. Sharing art and music, even non-commercially, can reduce perceived quality quality that media (such as thousands of free hobby projects using your art). I couldn't tell from reading the license if that would be applicable 🤷

I assume as long as the assets aren't embedded in the core executable, even though it requires them to run, would mean they're safe from the license terms?

---

An example of where a license like in my original message above would be useful is in types of source-available projects. e.g. Gitlab's OpenCore model, where something more lenient than source-available is desired.

A source-available, non-commercial license would be useful for a project like a game. The developers may want to encourage community contributions and fixes to the codebase, without harming their potential earnings (copy this code, change it a bit, add some art, and re-release as a new, free game)

In order to do that they would need to use a non-commercial license. To make use of community contributions and continue selling their game, they would need a contributor agreement so that they can retain the right to use that contribution commercially.

If someone were to fork the game and implement changes then there's a risk that the company could be sued or be limited in what they're able to change, add, or fix in their game, as it could be seen as infringing on the forked game. Even if the license were share-alike, they wouldn't then be able to sell their game with those changes.

They could choose a different license that doesn't allow for non-commercial use. They could just make it a proprietary and source-available and then require a contributor agreement. This harms the ability for the community to patch and improve a game after the original developers have abandoned it, which happens all the time in games. It also limits the ability for mods of the game to be created from the original code, which harms the original developers, as mods can bring in more players and extend the games lifespan

[Zephilinox]

Any comments on this? I am planning to adopt the non-commercial license but I am concerned by what @Zephilinox had stated above

As long as you have a contributor agreement for changes back in to your codebase, and you're not worried about a non-commercial user of your codebase implementing and sharing changes that you would want to later implement, then I think a non-commercial license would be good :)

[cmitsakis]

share-alike is great :) but I don't think it would work for this particular usecase. Distributing changes under the original license, when that license is non-commercial, doesn't allow those changes to be made for commercial use.

I believe you can achieve this without requiring copyright assignment of contributions. You just need a license that requires 3rd party contributions have a permissive license.

Take a look at this license: https://indiecc.com/free/2.0.0

Maybe PolyForm could add a similar clause.

[Zephilinox]

aw that's quite interesting, thanks. A polyform license like that would be nice, or some information on how legal that license is, as nothing relevant came up in the googlez