Clause one is fine, but clause two “If a person ends up distributing a commercial or open source project based partially or entirely on mine, he/she lets me know about the existence of such product/project, nothing more, nothing less.” is not:
Putting this clause in will stop the software being Free Software or Open Source, but with a little modification to conditions it can be both.
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch
files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program
at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of
software built from modified source code. The license may require
derived works to carry a different name or version number from the
Free Software definition says, you can not restrict modification, but can in a limited way restrict distribution (make them change name, informs previous developers) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes
that someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so
burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must
make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too, on the same
condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one saying that if
you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks
for a copy of it, you must send one. (Note that such a rule still
leaves you the choice of whether to distribute your version at all.)
Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions
that you put into public use are also acceptable.
Irrevocable, even on death (how do we contact you if you are dead, and 1000 other circumstances, that I can not thing of all of them).
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
cause, the software is not free.
Hope you find a licence you like, do not make up your own (we have enough, and they are hard to do well). One of the best things to do, is make it easy for them. Put the project somewhere like github (though I don't like git: it is too difficult for me). Then people will contribute because it is easy to.
I remember part of the rational of the Free Software rules is: imagine some people being persecuted my a corrupt government. They are using you software to fight for their freedom, and need to change it. If they transmit there changes to you, they will be arrested and shot.