[Somewhat rearranged] Ivan Fomichev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 14 апр, 14:29, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
