I was taking a look at this question here:Open Source License that prevents re-sellingAnd it makes some good points on how open source is defined by its ability for resale...However, I still have a bit of a concern of verbatim resale. I don't mind letting my code be changed, edited, modified, shared, etc... what would strike me as offensive though is if I released my application on a store, and someone decides to take my package/application, make no changes to it whatsoever, and release it in the same store at a competing price. I would be fine if he say released it under a different translation, or added a feature, some documentation, or packaged it for a different platform... but to copy verbatim to snatch up some royalties, seems like that this would only be detrimental to the open source community and discourage developers who are brave enough to let their code be open in the first place.Is there a strategy, clause, or a specific open source license that combats this type of behaviour? If I perhaps create and bundle a trademark inside my program, would this prevent it being sold verbatim?
Open Source License that prohibits verbatim resale?
licensing;open source;sales
I think you may be fighting a losing battle; I'm not sure how I want to make my source code available to others to do more or less what they want to (the definition of open source) is compatible with I want to keep others from undercutting me on price.With that said, there are a few strategies that may or may not help:Trademark the product name, logo, etc. This would mean that cloning could still happen, but any clones couldn't use your name. Examples: Red Hat clone CentOS couldn't refer to Red Hat by name (it described itself as based on a prominent North American Linux vendor); the Firefox trademarks mean that Debian calls their version of Firefox Iceweasel.As @Delnan points out, this could easily backfire, since it doesn't prevent people from releasing under a different name and building up their own brand.Don't open source everything. Open all of the libraries and supporting code but keep your core functionality closed (example: GitHub); or open the core but make add-ons proprietary (examples: numerous); or open the PC / Mac version but keep the mobile port proprietary. For games, you can open the code but copyright the assets (levels, graphics, etc.) (examples: DOOM, ToME).Even something as simple as opening the components but keeping the build scripts and packaging closed could be enough of a road block to stop parasites until you're reasonably popular; at that point, you can hopefully compete on other terms.Let it go. Patrick McKenzie talks about feeling violated when someone pirates your commercial software and wanting a security system [that] includes dead-locks, pitbulls, a batallion of US Marines with shoot-to-kill-orders, and some cleverly disguised booby-traps involving acid or flaming oil, or perhaps just flaming acid; although he's discussing commercial software, maybe the same philosophy applies here.If your product doesn't see much success, then the existence of parasites isn't really hurting you. If your product does see success, then if you do your product right - create something that meets people's needs, and treat people well - then you'll have fans, and you'll have a community, and this will provide some protection against parasites. You won't stop every abuse, but you'll do well enough.Or maybe not. I'm not an expert here.