<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body >1. As far as I read doesn't the GPL require redistributors to link thw software's original homepage and what is more important it's source code.<br>2. One goal of my license is to make a license that isn't to long and to complex.
<div id="content"><blockquote><br> ---- On Mi, 08 Jun 2016 15:38:27 +0200 <b> email@example.com </b> wrote ----<br><br><div>Matthias,<br><br>So, first, you haven't shown that you have licensing needs which are not<br>satisfied by existing licenses. It really seems like what you want is<br>the LGPL, or a similar license; why not just use that?<br><br>Using an existing license both means that you benefit from the legal<br>expertise of many other people, it also makes it easier for developers<br>and companies to use your code because they know what to expect from<br>that license. Even assuming that we accepted your license (which is<br>unlikely), it would be a barrier to adoption and contributions to your<br>software just because it would be strange and unexpected.<br><br>Second, you really need the help of a professional to write this; the<br>reason why real licenses are "wordy" is that certain language is<br>required for the licenses to be effective. Unfortunately, OSI does not<br>currently supply such help.<br><br>--Josh Berkus<br>_______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Licensefirstname.lastname@example.org" target="_blank">Licenseemail@example.com</a><br><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>