Re: Which license am I looking for?

[Mark Weyer <weyer@informatik.hu-berlin.de>]

Sorry if this breaks threading. Subscription was not as quick as I thought.

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
> - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
>   software.
> - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for
>   derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming
>   convention, or to convey source code at runtime.
> - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts,
>   documentation, or whatever.
>   Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software.
>   The only distinction should be source vs. non-source.
> - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free.

Maybe I should have been less terse.
- With "source requirement" I meant that source code of derived works must
  be made available.
  I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses.
- "no contamination of other sofware" was meant to imply, that if someone
  uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not
  have to put her entire work under my license.
  I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a
  quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though.
- "no requirement to advertize" was targetted at clauses like 5d of GLPv3:
  | d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
  | Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
  | interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
  | work need not make them do so.

Anyway, thanks for your replies, David and Dmitri.

Best regards,

  Mark Weyer