The hard criterion "cannot sell it in original state" conflicts with the open source definition, thus, by definition, you won't find any open source license that include this clause. Depending on what exactly you mean with "cannot sublicense", the same may go for that criterion:
Open source definition clause 1: Free redistribution
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.
The closest you can still get to your criteria is probably the Reciprocal Public License (RPL).
The RPL is a license that is similar to the GPL, but requires users who make changes to the software and do not publish the software to nevertheless make those changes available to the licensor: Clause 6 of the license reads (abridged)
[...] Any Extensions that You create or to which You contribute must be
Deployed under the terms of this License. [...] You hereby grant to Licensor
and all third parties a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license [...]
to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, create derivatives,
sublicense, and distribute Licensed Software, in any form.
The OSI considers this license an open source license, but the FSF has designated it as non-free because of this obligation, and it's not GPL compatible.
If you're willing to move further from the reciprocity requirement, the GNU Public License (GPL) requires users who distribute software that is a derivative work of your work to also distribute it under the GPL. This means that they are only obliged to make the source code available to you if they distribute the software (to you).