Someone I know asked me for a favour. They made an agreement with a software firm for some custom software for basically inventory on a web interface, generic DB+webserver. They need me to do updates to it as a favour.

It’s handoff time. The guys are giving him some trouble. I let them know if I need to do maintainence and whatnot, I need the source code. The guys are saying no. I recommended we use a licence that basically says “Buyer can modify the software and source code, but not distrobute it. Creator can distrobute the software and whatever they want”.

I’ve looked around, and I saw recommendations for :

  • source code escrow
  • internal-use license
  • Modified Source Code License
  • custom Restricted Source Code License
  • internal modification only licence

anyone have recommendations of specific licences?

  • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
    2·
    15 hours ago

    There’s ambiguity in the above conversation.

    1. The original post tells me that SWF has made the software and is giving it to ACQ; ACQ is asking SG for modification.

    2. @litchralee@sh.itjust.works seems to understand it this way: ACQ has made the software and is giving it to SWF and wants SG to do further modifications.

    3. The comment that I am replying to, won’t make @litchralee@sh.itjust.works (who is assuming [2.]) realise [1.].

    • litchralee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      14 hours ago

      Intriguing. Upon rereading, that is also a plausible interpretation. But I think the issue still stands, but in reverse: if the software is produced by SWF, is licensed to ACQ for use (but not modification), then there will be a need for ACQ (not SG) to negotiate a source-code license with SWF.

      If OP’s question is now about what sort of license terms would be workable, that’s entirely up to SWF. They would be within their rights to not even answer the phone, once they’ve completed their delivery per whatever contract they have worth ACQ.

      • Skullgrid@lemmy.worldOP
        1·
        8 hours ago

        is licensed to ACQ for use (but not modification), then there will be a need for ACQ (not SG) to negotiate a source-code license with SWF.

        yes, the negociation is being done by ACQ. I am giving assistance explaining to ACQ how what they want can be achieved. I am not certain on the specifics on which licence to recommend, so I am coming to the wise people of this community to see what they might know that I am missing. As in “here’s a licence I used/saw that could help”