copyright licensing
Is there an open source license which makes the licensee inform the licenser about the derivative product/project?
<p>I did some research about the popular open source software licenses and none of them explicitly solve a particular point I'd like to have:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>I don't mind at all to allow for free use and distribution of the source, nor do</p></li>
<li><p>I want to force people to contribute with their mods nor anything containing their IP.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>The following 2 things I'd like to have:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>A notice which states clearly that I develop the original source(the apache license has this in the form of a NOTICE file as far as I know).</p></li>
<li><p>If a person ends up distributing a commercial or open source project based partially or entirely on mine, he/she lets me know about the existence of such product/project, nothing more, nothing less.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Do you happen to know if something that specific happens to exist out there or maybe I can just make a small mod to a popular license?</p>

<p>There's a couple open source licenses that I currently think of, that resemble your requirements. The Reciprocal Public License, and the General Public License.</p>

<p>These licenses have a bit of a "giving-back" requirement, in other words, they've got a copyleft clause. Anyone who uses software licensed under the RPL or the GPL need to provide the source code back to their community. However, the two licenses differ, albeit minimally.</p>

<p>The RPL forces you to distribute any modification that you make, even if you do not deploy it publicly. The GPL forces you to distribute any modification that you make, when you deploy it publicly. Distribution is defined as making the source code available.</p>

<p>These are just about the closest you can get. These licenses can't force them to notify you of any changes, but they do force them to make available any changes that they make. If they host their code on GitHub or something like that, it should be relatively easy to search for such projects.</p>

<p>Clause one is fine, but clause two “If a person ends up distributing a commercial or open source project based partially or entirely on mine, he/she <strong>lets me know about the existence of such product/project</strong>, nothing more, nothing less.” is not:</p>

<p>Putting this clause in will stop the software being Free Software or Open Source, but with a little modification to conditions it can be both.</p>

<p>from <a href="https://opensource.org/osd-annotated" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.org/osd-annotated</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
  modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch
  files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program
  at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of
  software built from modified source code. The license may require
  derived works to carry a different name or version number from the
  original software.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Free Software definition says, you can not restrict modification, but can in a limited way restrict distribution (make them change name, informs previous developers) <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
  If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes
  that someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.</p>
  
  <p>However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
  if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
  versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
  Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
  name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
  modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so
  burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
  changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
  the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.</p>
  
  <p>Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must
  make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too, on the same
  condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one saying that if
  you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks
  for a copy of it, you must send one. (Note that such a rule still
  leaves you the choice of whether to distribute your version at all.)
  Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions
  that you put into public use are also acceptable.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Irrevocable, even on death (how do we contact you if you are dead, and 1000 other circumstances, that I can not thing of all of them).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
  irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
  software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
  restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
  cause, the software is not free.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hope you find a licence you like, do not make up your own (we have enough, and they are hard to do well). One of the best things to do, is make it easy for them. Put the project somewhere like github (though I don't like git: it is too difficult for me). Then people will contribute because it is easy to. </p>

<p>I remember part of the rational of the Free Software rules is: imagine some people being persecuted my a corrupt government. They are using you software to fight for their freedom, and need to change it. If they transmit there changes to you, they will be arrested and shot.</p>
