looking for a license

[Russell Nelson]

mkr writes:
 > 1. Distribution
 > Everyone should be able to distribute the software for any cost he 
 > wants, if this distribution complies with this:
 >   . recipient gets a copy of the license
 >   . recipient gets informed about the original developer
 >   . recipient gets the source code if he wants (for 2 years) -> GPL

The GPL works for that.

 > 2. Modifying
 > Everyone should be able to freely modify the software with the following 
 > conditions:
 >   . modified work must have the same license
 >   . renaming of the product and executables
 >   . if one wants to see his mods included in the main distribution he 
 >     needs to transfer the copyright to the initial developer -> Artistic
 >   . distribution of mods like above

The GPL works for that also.  You can claim a trademark on the name of
the product and the executables.  You can say "You have no license to
use these trademarks.  You must rename derivative works."  You can
tell people that their mods will only be included if they transfer the
copyright to you.  Doesn't need to go into the license.

 > 3. Non-Commercial use
 > 4. Commercial use

An Open Source license cannot discriminate in this manner.

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | Violence never solves
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | problems, it just changes
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 212-202-2318 voice | them into more subtle
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | FWD# 404529 via VOIP  | problems.