Maximum Use License for Everyone (MULE, for those who insist on using silly-sounding, animalistic acronyms)
Version 3 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 "You 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.