This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail, because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't remember as a whole. And I doubt most developers who license their stuff under the terms of the GPL actually really know any detail and possible impact of the GPL.
Hence discussions about complex licenses tend to be complex as well, as this discussion shows (same applies to discussions about complex software). So, instead of joining a discussion here, I think, that the time is better invested into real development ;) To the proposal I should ask the FFSE guys about things I don't understand: I think this proposal is fair, but actually I really prefer to spend my time into developing something, instead of discussing legal things in theory and practice. The GPL is a very juristic text in my eyes and as usual for juristic persons, there is so much interpretation in it, depending on their model of freedom, thinking, culture, justice, etc. that it might be an expensive (in the matters of time) discussion. A decent license for less suckish software in my eyes, should be easy to grasp and to understand and should not be any longer than the source code itself it restricts or protects to some extend ;) If someone is able to write a copyleft license which might be agreed as open source license and which is as simple to grasp as the MIT license, please volunteer! Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361