Is there a license that make your source code proprietary and that you can put your source code as open source?
I mean I don’t care if anybody read my source code, learn from it, copy it for free project at limit. But I don’t want anybody to use it for commercial things and I want to be able to use it for commercial things.
And of course, I want to keep resources (graphics and sounds) proprietary.
What type of license should I chose?
N.B. : Is creative-common good for that?
You could make it GPL 
Come on Cylab, once you sell it to someone you must provide the source code to that person as well. Then that person can do anything it want with the copy of the source code you just gave him. Even beginning to resell it to other persons. GPL is not an option.
It sounds like the OP wants to use GPL.
Giving the world your software under the GPL means they can’t use it without providing the source for ALL of their application. This means it probably won’t be used in a commercial app, though it doesn’t prevent it. However, you still own your software and you can use it yourself in your own commercial or closed source projects.
Note that if you GPL your code and other people contribute code to your project under the GPL, you can’t use their contributions in a closed source app unless they also grant you a separate license. A lot of open source is actually for sale if you contact the owners, which is messed up if they accepted any contributions under the GPL.
Thanks Nate 
@Gudradain
I was not really serious with my suggestion, but as Nate already explained for me, putting something under GPL causes that everyone with closed source projects to drop your code like it’s hot.
Nate’s right. GPL is the a right way to do this. Your comment here is a common, but misunderstood, response. You could check out this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing for more info - it’s basically the way projects like MySQL were commercialized.
I’d steer clear of Creative Commons for code (I think they say as much) but useful for your other assets. I wouldn’t bother with the “non-commercial” clause personally, because it’s a complete legal grey area - the “share-alike” clause should be enough.
Unless you provide the alternative of a closed-source license as well, in which case, why would they be bothered?
I was more refering to the behaviour regarding pure GPL, since I thought that’s more or less what the OP wanted (protect his code from commercial exploitation).
I read it that the OP wants to protect his code from commercial exploitation from anyone other than himself. The common misunderstanding I refer to (and Nate does) that the OP made is that the GPL applies to the licensee, not the licensor. As long as the OP is the sole copyright holder[1] then he can also commercially license the code without himself or the commercial licensee being bound by any of the conditions of the GPL.
[1] To be more precise, the sole copyright holder of any code that is GPL - 3rd party code under a more liberal license would not be a problem.
John Carmack of Id software always releases their source code, just as you want to release yours.
The latest one is / will be the doom 3 source code
They always use GPL.
[quote]… licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License …
[/quote]
Doom 3 was released in 2004 and they are only putting the source code now. Who would bother trying to steal a game that was done a few year back?
There is something I don’t quite understand. Can anybody at any time take my GPL code and begin selling it if they want. Or do I have to sell it to them first so they can use it?
Anyway, I really don’t care about the Open Source part. The only thing I care about is that I can be the only one using my code in commercial use. So if I have to do it closed source, I will do it. I guess I didn’t formulate well my question.
So let’s say I do it closed source, which type of license is good?
N.B. : I’m not making a module or a library to be use by other. I’m making a game to be sell.
According to Carmack it’s a huge legal mess to release anything so big and commercial as open source. So Rage might take up to 10 years if it’s source is ever open sourced.
It’s primarily for educational purposes anyway…
None, that’s default.
Something you create is entirely yours - and since you dont have to open source.
The creator, the copyright owner, obviously, has always the exclusive right to its own stuff, by default.
I’m the copyright owner just for creating it?
It’s that simple.
In fact, speaking for german law here: In Germany the creator is always the copyright holder and cannot ever, while living transfer it. “Licensing” is the only thing you can do.
How does law apply if there are more than one person working on a close source project? Are both person the copyright owner? Do you need to set up some sort of contract to make sure that the other person don’t run away with code?
well, again german law here, but I’m pretty sure, only one legal person can be the copyright holder.
legal person meaning real person or a corporation / organization which can also be one legal person.
I disagree here. The GPL is used to keep certain freedoms including access to the source. It does not in any way restrict the right to sell the software commercially.
If you release software as GPL then anyone using it can SELL the software as long as they follow the other parts of the GPL including to keep the source available. This is in direct opposition to what the original poster wanted…
Here’s a scenario. You create a cool proof of concept game and release as GPL. Later on Company X takes that GPL code, fully fleshes out the game, and sells it. It becomes even bigger than Minecraft. Company X is totally in their right because they adhere to the GPL by making the source available. Company X doesn’t owe the original poster anything. OP, are you okay with this scenario?
No that’s exactly what I want to avoid.
So that mean I need to create a company of some sort so every owner of the company have some right over the code? Does it changes anything if not everyone is in the same country? Also, how do you state that the code is the property of the company? It’s not like there is working hours and everyone code at his home so how do you distinguished between the property of the person and the property of the company?
This is a highly unlikely scenario, because comercial companies wouldn’t touch GPL code - not even wearing gloves. GPL is a viral license, you don’t want GPL code in a company. Every modification has to be opened under GPL as well, you can’t copy code or even link with GPL code without opening yours. If someone copies over code from a GPLed project in good faith without thinking of the implications, you “infected” that project with the GPL - hence its called a viral license.
The only scenario is, that some hobbyist is taking your code, uses different resources and try to sell that, which would probably be fine with me.
Having said that. GPL is not the License the OP asks for. I don’t know any standard license with this requirements, so he probably just has to pick one and add a non-commercial-use clause to it.
On the other hand, really successful games are made of content, which can be packaged and licensed separately. Raw code is probably not very important, if it’s not the next big industrial strenght graphics technology - and even then…
Companies are legal persons by default so they can be, as a whole, the copyright holder.
So if you don’t have that, just name one person as the creator and sole copyright holder; obviously you can make groups… but I’m not sure when a group can be considered a legal person by law.
Where these people are should be irrelevant.
Also yeah… one can register a product for copyright somehow, buts its merely bureaucracy as all products are, like I said, protected by default.
Doesn’t hurt to protect your copyright by signing everything with a name and stuff, but it’s not required by the law.
If there ever is a trial, and there is doubt, one of those has to prove that he is the copyright holder / creator (I forgot which one)
And if you have created it … there should be so much stuff… should be easy
Obviously it hardly ever comes to that case.
Fun fact: every picture you take, NO matter what quality, can be a shaken cell phone picture, is protected by copyright and you can sue people eventually if they, for example put it on their page and claims its their’s