Including open source within a larger package

[Chris F Clark]

I wrote:
 > I am a little concerned about releasing something that is not source
 > (i.e. not human readable) under the GPL without providing the source
 > material (which I am unable to do as some of the source material is
 > under non-disclosure or other license terms, although I have the right
 > to release non-human readable versions

Russ Nelson replied:
> You should be very concerned about doing that.  Why are you obsessed
> by the GPL?  There are dozens and dozens of other licenses which are
> more appropriate to your situation.  You don't need a new license.

I am not obsessed with the GPL.  I would be willing to replace it with
any license that offers similar protections.  I have 4 criteria for
the license.

1) That the source code be "open source".  That is, it is clear to
   users that they can use the source code to create their own
   derivative works and that they can redistribute either what I've
   given them or their derivative works. The ability of the users to
   create derivative works is a key as the "open source" part is
   specifically designed to be used in a derivative work. As far as I
   can tell, any open source licesne will satifisy this part.

2) That the resulting code cannot be "privatized" (i.e. that
   derivative works must also be "open source"--the so called "viral"
   property of the license).  Thus, a BSD or MIT-like license won't
   work.  This is what prompted me to put the source code portion
   under the GPL, although I'm not obsessed with that decision.
   However, protecting the derivative works from privitization is
   important, as the software is already available under a proprietary
   license and I wish to continue having "extracting monopoly rent"
   from those customers who wish to build private proprietary
   derivative works.

3) That the license is generally compatible with other open source
   projects, so that the source code can be combined with other open
   source code to make larger projects.  Since a large body of works
   are already under the GPL, this clearly makes it acceptable for
   this part.

4) That the license doesn't require me to distribute sources for
   things which I cannot (or will not), and that my not doing so
   doesn't impact further redistributions of things which I am giving
   away.  This is the sticky point.  I specifically want to give away
   some "shareware" type code as part of the distribution, but I don't
   want that impacting the "open source" status of the source code
   part of the distribution.  Note that it doesn't make sense for me
   to distribute the open source parts separate from the shareware
   parts.  While the shareware parts play no role in the finished
   application (derivative work), they are an integral part of
   adapting the open source part to its use in a finished application.
   Thus, distributing the two entities as seaprate things is to my
   mind merely subtrefuge. (see analogy below)

   It is not as important that others be able to redistribute the
   "shareware" parts, but it is strongly preferrable.  If some
   [re]distributor happens to include my package as part of something
   that they are [re]distrbuting, I would like that to be clearly
   permitted.

Any license that can satisfy all 4 points is acceptable to me. I am
willing to listen to any recommendations as to what license I should
use to satisfy the 4 concerns.

analogy:
Imagine that I am giving away a box of special screws (the open source
part) and the matching screwdriver (the shareware part).  When the
user has built the bookcase, only the screws are relevant, but the
screwdriver is needed to drive the screws in the first place.  I want
the user to be able to build "open source" bookcases from my screws.
However, I can't give the user an open source screwdriver yet.  It
will take me around a year to produce an open source screwdriver.
However, I would like people to have the open source screws in the
meantime.

Obviously, if I had an open source scrwdriver today, I could put the
entire work under the GPL (or similar license) and life would be
simple.

-Chris