Maximum Use License for Everyone (MULE, for those who insist on using silly-sounding, animalistic acronyms)
See below for present Version 4
Copyright © 2002-2007 David H. McClamrock <[email protected]> This license may be freely copied and distributed. It may also be modified, but only for use with a program other than the program with which it was originally distributed. If modified, this license must be distributed under a name other than "Maximum Use License for Everyone." Nothing in this permission is intended to modify or contradict the terms of this license as set forth below.
This software is "free" or "open source" software. It doesn't matter which of these names you call it. Here is what does matter:
You may use this software in any way you wish, subject to all applicable laws and to the provisions of this Maximum Use License for Everyone. You may copy and distribute all or part of this software, without cost, at will. If you sell copies of all or part of this software, either alone or together with other works, you must reach an agreement with the copyright holder as to a reasonable rate of remuneration per copy (or a waiver of remuneration). You must distribute a copy of this Maximum Use License for Everyone with each copy of all or part of this software you distribute. You may not alter or remove any part of any copyright notice that appears in the source code for this software or in any file distributed with this software.
You may modify this software at will, and you may incorporate all or part of it, in modified or unmodified form, into other software. Any software so created or modified must carry this notice or a substantially similar notice: "Portions of this work copyright © [applicable years] [copyright holder], and originally released under Maximum Use License for Everyone."
You may copy and distribute other software containing all or part of this software, in modified or unmodified form, without cost under this Maximum Use License for Everyone, or under any other "free" or "open source" software license consistent with the Open Source Definition promoted by the Open Source Initiative <http://opensource.org/ >. However, if you sell any copies of such software, you must reach an agreement with the copyright holder of this software as to a reasonable rate of remuneration per copy (or a waiver of remuneration). You may also copy and distribute other software containing all or part of this software, in modified or unmodified form, under any software license other than those to which the preceding paragraph of this license refers, but only after reaching an agreement with the copyright holder as to a reasonable rate of remuneration per copy (or a waiver of remuneration).
You may not prevent anyone else from using, copying, modifying, or distributing this software in any way that anyone else may wish (subject to the provisions of this Maximum Use License for Everyone), except to the extent necessary to enforce any applicable laws that you may be authorized to enforce if you are a governmental agent. You may not claim authorship or ownership of any part of this software, nor may you identify the author of this software as the author of any modifications or additions to this software that were not actually written by the author.
This software is distributed without any warranties of any kind, express or implied, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. This software is not intended to be distributed in any jurisdiction that disallows such total exclusion of express or implied warranties for "free" or "open source" software. If there is any risk involved in using, copying, modifying, or distributing this software, you assume all such risk; if any such risk materializes, you assume the cost of remediation. In short, if you want to be able to sue your software provider in the event that something goes wrong, you should use expensive proprietary software instead of this free software.
By using, copying, modifying, or distributing this software in whole or in part, you indicate that you accept this Maximum Use License for Everyone in its entirety. If you do not accept this license in its entirety, you have no right to use, copy, modify, or distribute this software in whole or in part. If you do accept this license in its entirety, go ahead and make maximum use of this software, while allowing everyone else to do the same.
Lars H, 2008-03-19: Is it known that this license meets the Open Source / Free conditions, or just a belief held by the author? (The catch that caught my eye concerns selling copies of software. E.g. many Linux distributors could be considered doing this, so they would probably not be interested in including any software where that part hasn't been waivered, so there's probably something about this issue in e.g. the Debian Free Software Guidelines.)
D. McC 2008 March 21: That's a purely theoretical question for me, since I've never charged anyone any money for doing anything with my software and I think it's highly unlikely that I ever will--but it's an interesting, and possibly even important, theoretical question.
The most basic ideas underlying my Maximum Use License for Everyone are that (1) if you don't sell my software in modified or unmodified form, you can do basically whatever you want with it; (2) if you do sell my software in modified or unmodified form, I should get a fair proportion of the money (if that would be enough money to bother with, which it probably wouldn't). The question is whether the second of these ideas conflicts with the first paragraph of the Open Source Definition <http://opensource.org/docs/osd >: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
Now, if that paragraph were to turn out to mean "The license must allow other people to make money off your software and pay you none of it," then it would conflict. In that event, rather than seem to endorse such an unjust principle, I would remove the expression "open-source" from the license (unless and until the unjust principle was removed from the Open Source Definition). The expression "maximum-use software" would do just as well as "free" or "open-source software"--maybe even better, if it ever caught on.
But is it certain that this is what the paragraph means? I wouldn't presume that it is, if there's any reasonable possibility that it might mean something less unjust instead. If I get any complaints from the Open Source Initiative to the effect that I'm giving an insufficiently exploitative interpretation to the expression "open-source," I'll be sure to give them at least as much consideration as they deserve.
As for the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I neither know nor care whether my license is consistent with them; anyone can see I don't agree with the views of the more extreme free-software ideologues; my license was specifically designed to eschew what I see as certain bad features of the GNU General Public License (as well as certain other bad features of BSD-type licenses); and free-software ideologues are not entitled to a monopoly on the definition or use of the expression "free software."
Lars H: I quite agree on the just/unjust aspects of this matter — Debian in particular seems to propagate the view that the distributor is king, the service to whom should be sufficient reward for any author, and anyone who thinks different is a heretic — but such is very much the state of the world today. Using your own license with nonconformant conditions is perfectly possible, but it carries the risk that your works can be shut out from places where you would want them to be; either blocked immediately (which can often be perceived as sheer bureaucracy: "because your license is not on the approved list") or later just thrown out, if a legalistic crusade happens to strike your part of the Open Source world.
My first experience with that was in 2002, when the TeX world was dragged in front of the [email protected] inquisition; what followed wasn't pretty, and neither reason nor logic could sway the accusors from their agenda. In the end some concessions were made in the LaTeX license (thus giving Debian a political victory) and identical problems with the CM font license forgotten (pretending an obscure form of object code was "data" to weasel out of a chicken race they would not win), but several minor pieces of fully functional software was banished to "nonfree" status and thus effectively taken away from the majority of all users. A Debian bull of excommunication is perhaps not as big a problem in the Tcl world as it is in the TeX world — TeX is to a large extent a big system that pieces have to fit into and most users don't have the time to learn the insides of, whereas a Tcl/Tk application can be a system of its own — but one should as author be aware of the possible repercussions when making the choice of license. Packages/extensions are more vulnerable than applications.
D. McC 2008 Mar 25: On further consideration, I think this license can be made more obviously (or more nearly) consistent with the Open Source Definition, without abandoning any principles. Here's a new paragraph that I think does the job:
You may give away, or sell at cost, an aggregate software distribution containing this software and software from other sources, without remunerating the copyright holder. If you give away, or sell at cost, a fully functional and readily available aggregate software distribution containing this software and software from other sources, then you may also include this software in an enhanced version of the same aggregate software distribution which may be sold for profit, without remunerating the copyright holder. However, if you sell copies of all or part of this software under any other circumstances, either alone or together with other works, you must reach an agreement with the copyright holder as to a reasonable rate of remuneration per copy (or a waiver of remuneration).
Under the circumstances specified in this paragraph, any profit from the enhanced version of the distribution would result entirely from the enhancements added by others, so there would be no more reason for the copyright holder to make money from the enhanced version than from the free version.
If I don't get any unfavorable comments on this paragraph, I'll incorporate it into a new version of the license (with a few other corresponding changes, and numbered paragraphs for ease of reference, as follows:
Maximum Use License for Everyone (MULE, for those who insist on using silly-sounding, animalistic acronyms)
Version 4
Copyright © 2002-2008 David H. McClamrock <[email protected]> This license may be freely copied and distributed. It may also be modified, but only for use with a program other than the program with which it was originally distributed. If modified, this license must be distributed under a name other than "Maximum Use License for Everyone." Nothing in this permission is intended to modify or contradict the terms of this license as set forth below.
_______________________________
1. This software is "free" or "open source" software. It doesn't matter which of these names you call it. Here is what does matter:
2. You may use this software in any way you wish, subject to all applicable laws and to the provisions of this Maximum Use License for Everyone. You may copy and distribute all or part of this software, without cost, at will.
3. You must distribute a copy of this Maximum Use License for Everyone with each copy of all or part of this software you distribute. You may not alter or remove any part of any copyright notice that appears in the source code for this software or in any file distributed with this software.
4. You may give away, or sell at cost, an aggregate software distribution containing this software and software from other sources, without remunerating the copyright holder. If you give away, or sell at cost, a fully functional and readily available aggregate software distribution containing this software and software from other sources, then you may also include this software in an enhanced version of the same aggregate software distribution which may be sold for profit, without remunerating the copyright holder. However, if you sell copies of all or part of this software under any other circumstances, either alone or together with other works, you must reach an agreement with the copyright holder as to a reasonable rate of remuneration per copy (or a waiver of remuneration).
5. You may modify this software at will, and you may incorporate all or part of it, in modified or unmodified form, into other software. Any software so created or modified must carry this notice or a substantially similar notice: "Portions of this work copyright © [applicable years] [copyright holder], and originally released under Maximum Use License for Everyone."
6. You may copy and distribute other software containing all or part of this software, in modified or unmodified form, without cost under this Maximum Use License for Everyone, or under any other "free" or "open source" software license consistent with the Open Source Definition promoted by the Open Source Initiative <http://opensource.org/ >. However, if you sell any copies of such software (except as part of an aggregate software distribution under the circumstances specified in paragraph 4 of this license), you must reach an agreement with the copyright holder of this software as to a reasonable rate of remuneration per copy (or a waiver of remuneration).
7. You may also copy and distribute other software containing all or part of this software, in modified or unmodified form, under any software license that is not among the "free" or "open source" licenses to which paragraph 6 of this license refers, but only after reaching an agreement with the copyright holder as to a reasonable rate of remuneration per copy (or a waiver of remuneration).
8. You may not prevent anyone else from using, copying, modifying, or distributing this software in any way that anyone else may wish (subject to the provisions of this Maximum Use License for Everyone), except to the extent necessary to enforce any applicable laws that you may be authorized to enforce if you are a governmental agent.
9. You may not claim authorship or ownership of any part of this software, nor may you identify the author of this software as the author of any modifications or additions to this software that were not actually written by the author.
10. This software is distributed without any warranties of any kind, express or implied, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. This software is not intended to be distributed in any jurisdiction that disallows such total exclusion of express or implied warranties for "free" or "open source" software. If there is any risk involved in using, copying, modifying, or distributing this software, you assume all such risk; if any such risk materializes, you assume the cost of remediation. In short, if you want to be able to sue your software provider in the event that something goes wrong, you should use expensive proprietary software instead of this free software.
11. By using, copying, modifying, or distributing this software in whole or in part, you indicate that you accept this Maximum Use License for Everyone in its entirety. If you do not accept this license in its entirety, you have no right to use, copy, modify, or distribute this software in whole or in part. If you do accept this license in its entirety, go ahead and make maximum use of this software, while allowing everyone else to do the same.
chrstphrchvz - 2019-02-23 13:13:19
I asked on Open Source Stack Exchange if this license could pass as a FOSS license; I don't think it can, and so far neither does anybody else. The responses have raised some concerns not already discussed here; one particular concern I have is whether MULE-licensed software can even be relicensed under FOSS license (paragraph 6), as many FOSS licenses will not allow MULE's "without cost" provisions to be enforced. It may be a legitimate concern for software projects to not want their work (unfairly) used for profit by users or redistributors, but FOSS does not allow their licenses be used to address such concerns, and free software finds those concerns invalid or unimportant compared to freedom 2. The recent debate over the Commons Clause seems to reaffirm FOSS' stance on attempts to restrict the sale of software while using its licenses.