I am a library developer. I want to open source it soon, but I'm not sure what license will work best for me.My main concerns are:I want to provide a commercial license for somebody who is willing to pay on top of open source one (LGPL allows it, right?)I want to allow the usage in commercial projects (not sure what to do here, because LGPL has dynamic linking exception, but iOS is one of the platforms I'm targeting and on iOS static linking is still most popular option)I want to be capable to merge any derivatives back without any permission from somebody who made modifications without preserving any of the credits of modifier. As well I want to have my copyrights on all the code, does not matter where from it comes, merged back from a fork or written in-house. Basically I need a license, that states that modifier waives any claims or demands to the modifications he made.I want to forbid any third party to re-license the code and/or change copyright and credits.I'm not sure if this is trivial or not, but I will greatly appreciate any suggestions.The problem is that I want to monetise the software. I want to make it available free for open-source community, but I don't want any claims from any contributor (this does not mean that there will be no contributor list, though). I just want to preserve the right to merge anything back without any permission, so I want a license, that explicitly states, that modifier waives any claims and understands, that even his credit might not be preserved.Some interesting stuff discovered during my research. This thing I'm looking for does seem to be possible. Here is an example of FSF recognised license: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:QPLv1.0 Take a look at section 3b.
Appropriate licence for later merging back
copyleft;derivative works;license recommendation;lgpl