others are allowed to repackage as long as the re-packager do not claim sole ownership;
others are allowed neither to re-package nor claim ownership.
others are allowed to re-package and/or re-distribute as long as they do not claim sole ownership.
Neither of the first two interpretations is similar to a BSD license. BSD is closest to the third interpretation. It seems you want to prevent re-distribution and/or derivative work that do not contribute changes back. If you want to prevent re-distribution, it is no longer a FOSS license; you can edit MPL (Mozilla's license) a bit and go through the trademark route. Alternatively, you could just make it GPL so others are obligated to contribute back.
An ambiguous license prevents potential contributes from contributing.
w0lfschild
commented
3 years ago
It is unclear if it is means:
Neither of the first two interpretations is similar to a BSD license. BSD is closest to the third interpretation. It seems you want to prevent re-distribution and/or derivative work that do not contribute changes back. If you want to prevent re-distribution, it is no longer a FOSS license; you can edit MPL (Mozilla's license) a bit and go through the trademark route. Alternatively, you could just make it GPL so others are obligated to contribute back.
An ambiguous license prevents potential contributes from contributing.