Re: Recommend a license, please

[David Kastrup]

[Somewhat rearranged]

Ivan Fomichev <ifomichev@gmail.com> writes:

> 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

The GPL is not prohibiting profit.

> GPL is the worst choice, even besides its illegibility. It is greedy,

I don't understand a single word of what you are trying to state.  I am
not even sure that you have a clear picture of it yourself.

> 2. free of hubris, that is the license must not require any software,
> that gets profit of licensed software, to use the same license

[continued sentence about GPL:]

> and who dares speak about self-esteem being full of hubris?

Again, I don't understand a single word of what you are trying to say.

>
>> > 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

But that is pretty much what the GPL enforces.

>> > and d) GPL-compatible.

Sigh.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum