New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License [rschi@rsmba.biz]

[Chuck Swiger]

Richard Schilling wrote:
[ ... ]

Richard, the best place for you to discuss your license and have it reviewed 
for compliance with the OSI Open Source(tm) definition is 
<license-discuss at opensource.org>.  If you submit your license following the 
procedure as documented on www.opensource.org, the OSI board of directors will 
review and respond appropriately.  It's off-topic here.

> Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a
> proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the
> deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product.

If the derivative work has such a restriction, the derivative is not under an 
Open Source software license.  If the original work has restrictions which 
prevent the software from being "freely" redistributed, or which restrict 
commercial (re)use, the original license would not be Open Source, either.

[ ... ]
> If a developer chooses to not release their code, that's up to them, in
> which case I would not call the _software_ an Open Source product. However,
> the license is Open Source because it does not prevent the distribution of
> code - it simply requires the end user to get the code from the source that
> the developer approves of. If a developer says the product can be distributed
> through Sourceforge, then it can.

Good example!  If you submit a project under your SSOSL, you will presumably 
discover that SourceForge won't host the project after they review the 
license.  (Seriously.)  They'll even tell you why.

-- 
-Chuck