Thanks for all your comments. I see that my initial proposal did not fit the Open Source Definition as outlined by OSI. I apologize for my lack of research in that regard.
I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a revised proposal. Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the distribution of binary executables? Web-base applications written in languages like PHP do not have binary distributions. However, the act of deploying web applications, that is, the act of making a software available for use by others, is analogous to the distribution of compiled binaries. As such, I believe web-applications should be warranted similar provisions as those offered to binary executables under the GPL. Here's a case in point. My software by default has a link to the project website in the login page, which is the only "branding" in the whole interface. Consider a case where an organization deploys the software with that link replaced with a link to its own website. I believe this is identical to re-branding an existing software package and distributing it (since the project gets no credit, and the end users won't know what they're using). Under the GPL, a vendor who redistributes rebranded binaries would be required to also make the source code available, however, an organization that deploys a rebranded version of my software would not be required to do so (if my interpretation is correct). This is troublesome not just because of branding, but also because I've noticed organizations making significant proprietary changes to the software, which aren't available to the community (which I think runs counter to the spirit of the GPL). Also, if a license required organizations deploying modified versions of my software to make the source code available, it is possible that some organizations would prefer to persue alternative licenses, providing me with a potential revenue source. In effect, a license identical to the GPL, but one which replaces "distribution of binaries" with "deployment of the software" would be ideal. Would that work? Thanks, Ryo Chijiiwa -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
