Question: Edit: This was originally posted in law.stackexchange and was moved here with no input from me. I'm well aware that most Open Source advocates argue against any license that restricts others from profiting from any open source work. I think my best option is to break my question down in to several questions and reask them over at law.

Original Post:
I am working on a project and I have the source code on github. I'd like to add a license to it, but I'm not sure exactly what I need. I have the following circumstances:

* I'd like to eventually be able to sell or otherwise benefit financially from the project.
* I'd like to prevent anyone else from doing so.
* However, I'd like to make the source code freely available to others for personal use, including giving them the right to modify it and pass it on to others.
* I'd like to keep my right to be identified as the original author.
* Part of the code includes work that was originally published under the MIT license by someone else, but it has been reworked extensively by myself. I don't want to make any claim over this part of the code.

Is there a widely available license that will let me do all of the above?

If not, with regard to the final point, I assume I have the option of hosting the modified code in a separate repository, so that the main repository would only contain my original work. What license could I use then?

EDIT: If there's a tool that let's me create a legally valid license with the above criteria, that would be a good answer too.

Answer: 
What you describe is usually called *freeware*.

The FSF does not consider freeware to be free software, considering it to be proprietary software, and [asks people](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#freeware) not to call free software freeware. 

So such a software package would not be permitted in the Ubuntu `universe` repository.
I think answer is No. By definition closed-source software goes to Multiverse. 

I would handle this with care. How can you tell that software is not using third-party commercial libraries or patents?