Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
I had been using the GPL for some years without fully understanding its implications. Recently, I spent some time thinking about my ethical beliefs regarding free software and discovered that I prefer something like Creative Commons' by-sa (attribution + share-alike) license. That is, I want the source code of my software to remain free, like a free bird that cannot be caged.
What important difference do you see between the GPL and BY-SA? They were designed to work in similar ways.
I looked at other by-sa licenses (particularly MPL, CDDL, CPL, EPL) but found them to be lengthy. Instead, I admire the MIT license for its short length and comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft variation of the MIT license[2].
This is a really bad idea, for reasons already explained by people more coherent than me. Please don't do it.
This might also be of interest: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
