Skip to main content
Open Source

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • The fact that the license would exclude the requirement of source code distribution seems to be against the intentions of the OSI open source definition. This is making your question off topic (see opensource.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic ). I am not clear about the benefits of the license you are looking for. Maybe you could elaborate on that point (but I am not sure if that would ever make it on topic). Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 15:16
  • Wouldn't that make permissive licenses like the MIT license off-topic? Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 15:28
  • I edited the title to clarify that I'm referring to derivatives being source-unreadable. Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 15:38
  • @Martin_in_AUT I think a copyleft license without source code requirements could be useful for adapting "free without sources" software, eg some tools included in the (MIT License) free software MS-DOS v2 release. They're binary-only but the MIT conditions allow sharing and modifying (and, of course, reverse-engineering) these programs. Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 15:42
  • 3
    @Martin_in_AUT This question asks for a software-appropriate license that otherwise behaves identically to CC BY-SA (which is a free license according to the FSF), so this seems on-topic to me. This asks for a license that allows the downstream loss of source code, like a permissive license, but doesn't allow the distribution of binaries without rights to redistribute and modify (if you're handy with a hex editor, I guess). The free BY-SA already does this but without warranty disclaimer or patent awareness. Commented Feb 9, 2023 at 16:52