On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
[...]
> 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.
> - "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.
I personally very dislike this clause: I would have been way much
happier, if the GNU GPL v3 didn't have it at all...
Hence, I sympathize with your desire for a license that lacks such
clauses.
Back to your question: I personally think you should revise your
desiderata, since you seem to search for a broken copyleft, which is,
well... , not what I would really recommend! ;-)
My personal suggestions are:
* first, decide if you really want a copyleft
* in case you really want a copyleft, I _strongly_ recommend a
GPLv2-compatible license: for instance
- the GNU GPL v2 itself (only v2, or, if you prefer, with the
"or later" phrasing)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl2.txt
- or the GNU LGPL v2.1
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
* in case you conclude you do not want a copyleft, I recommend a
simple non-copyleft license: for instance
- the Expat/MIT license
http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
- or the 2-clause BSD license
http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (without clause 3.)
- or the zlib license
http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html
Of course, all the above is my own personal opinion.
Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
--
On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
"nano-documents" may lead you to my website...
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpaJdBzUFUCf.pgp
Description: PGP signature