On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
> - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
> software.
[...]
Maybe I should have been less terse.
- With "source requirement" I meant that source code of derived works must
be made available.
This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license.
I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses.
I agree.
- "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 think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft
license!
E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a
derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of
the GNU GPL itself.
The only exception is the case of "mere aggregation": see the license
text for more details.
Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent.
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.
If I understand your desiderata correctly, yes, I think all versions of
the GNU GPL are ruled out.