OK, yes, this is the opposite of what open source has come to mean, but it is “open source” because I want users to have access to the source code. There are several points to this.

First, users should have the wherewithal to know how to integrate the software into their work in ways that were unanticipated by the official documentation.

Next, other programmers should be able to audit the source code to see that it doesn’t do anything nefarious.

Next, other programmers should be able to inspect the source to verify that nothing was illegally taken from their source code.

Finally, users should have the assurance that they can rely on the software even if I die or otherwise abandon the project.

So these are valid concerns that distributing the source code to end users fulfills. But on the other hand, I still want to retain full ownership of the software. I don’t want others to subvert it into something that it wasn’t designed for. And I don’t want someone to grab all my hard work, put their name on it, and put me out of business.

None of the open source licenses in use today address these concerns. The software industry has changed in the 20 years since GNU and MIT were written, shouldn’t our licensing keep pace with this reality?