Is there a license that allows the freedom of the MIT license but only with permission to an entity?

Question

I want decent developers to extend and use my framework as they please. Is there a middle-ground where it is open source, but only to these with the permission?

One of the 2 developers that uses it on one of his big products had great success with it and it was amazing to see it, but I know what will happen if I allow people that really shouldn't be writing code use it. I want to maintain a high grade of confidence in the products that use this framework and I'd like to pick who has access to it.

Then again, if the freedoms of the MIT license apply, it means they'd also be free to redistribute, creating conflict with my intent.

The license should say: "This software is not to be used, modified or interacted with in any way or shape or form unless permitted to do so[..] Should you receive permission, you are free to do anything under the moon, except re-distribute the package for commercial use."

---

My intent, if it helps clear it up: There are a lot, or dare I say, the vast majority of developers within the WordPress eco-system are bad and in the worst way possible. Even popular plugins / themes are bloatware and performance hogs with the code being a total mess. I don't want these people nor to use my framework, nor to interact with it. I've given access to 2 developers, one of which is very big and they're using it and seeing great results, these people have respect for their code base, strict rules and are adepts to good code and they've made good contributions. These people, I want to work with and give freedom to, yet it seems that my request in its own seems draconic and contradictorian in nature.

Answer 1

No. The limited freedoms you intend to grant to approved persons

Should you receive permission, you are free to do anything under the moon, except re-distribute the package for commercial use

would disqualify this as free software, even if you gave those freedoms to everyone.

You have a further problem in that an approved person could then redistribute to a third party under, say, the Apache licence (as relicensing is a thing under the moon which is not redistribution for commercial use); the third party could then happily use it for commercial use. If you ban redistribution even by persons on the approved list, you fall even further foul of the free and open-source definitions.

it seems that my request in its own seems draconic and contradictorian in nature

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Answer 2

The short answer

No

The longer answer

Read the Free Software Definition. It says almost the same thing as the Open Source definition, but is harder to miss-understand.

The medium answer

To be free it must have

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Extract from the Open Source definition

• 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
• 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor