Re: Recommend a license, please

[Ivan Fomichev]

On 14 апр, 14:29, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > readable ;-), b)weak copyleft,
> What does "weak" mean for you?  Your example is pretty much like "GPL"
> which is not generally considered "weak".
For me, "weak copyleft" means
1. non-greedy, that is the license must allow any software to get
profit of licensed software
2. free of hubris, that is the license must not require any software,
that gets profit of licensed software, to use the same license

> > c) enforceable
> What is it that you want to enforce when you are talking about "weak"?
3. Self-esteemed, that is the license must require any modified
versions of software to be also open source

> > and d) GPL-compatible.
> I'd guess that the GPL is the best bet yet.  While you probably object
> to it on base of not being "human-readable", it is certainly one of
> those licenses covered most extensively in discussions and FAQs, so
> humans have a lot of references to consult in case of doubt (including
> the legal department of the FSF).

GPL is the worst choice, even besides its illegibility. It is greedy,
and who dares speak about self-esteem being full of hubris? I don't
like LGPL either, because the same illegibility and dynamic linking
controversy.

Regards,
Ivan