> Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth either, thank you.

I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your motivation.

> Spare me. It's hostile to GPL/affero, not to open source in general.

I said "free software", not "open source". People who consider themselves "free software" people tend to be the ones who belief in free software as an issue of morality; they tend to prefer copyleft licenses as a result.

> You know this whole web thing we've been doing, where we can take any javascript library we like and use it in professional / day-to-day work?

I don't do this whole web thing in any serious manner, but yes, I'm aware of it.

> Yeah, that. I'd kind of like to preserve the usefulness of code for actual work.

But if you came up with a great scheduler implementation or some such, you wouldn't want the Linux kernel to be able to use it?

You wouldn't want gitorious to be able to use some useful library you've written?

According to http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 , over 60% of open-source/free software is licensed under some from of GPL or LGPL. Even assuming that figure is excessively high, do you really want them to not be able to use it, just because they chose to adopt a license that, while more restrictive than BSD, is less restrictive than other licenses that you allow people to create forks of your code with?

> Because I want to preserve peoples' right to do anything they want with it. The only way to ensure that is to make certain a GPL fork never happens.

If you licensed with a normal BSD, MIT, or similar license, a GPL fork wouldn't make the original BSD version go away, any more than a company using your software in their proprietary software would make your original BSD version disappear. Besides, how many GPL forks of BSD projects are there? There are many more proprietary forks of BSD projects. A much more likely scenario that your license prevents is for a [L|A]?GPL licensed project to use a library you've licensed under it. Why is this so undesirable?

> GNUists thought they were being cute with copyleft, claiming it was preserving 'user rights' by using the same tactics as traditional copyright.
> It was a perversion that preempted peoples' ability to use any of the code in their actual day to day work, thereby enslaving them to same proprietary code all over again.

The GPL restricts the ability of people to redistribute modified proprietary versions of code. Your license restricts the ability of people to redistribute open source version of code. I'm not saying it eliminates that ability; it just prevents it from ever being incorporated into or linked with any GPL program.

> jQuery's status as an MIT licensed project is pretty much exemplary of what I'm trying to encourage.

Then just release it as MIT or BSD licensed. Disclaim copyright to the extent legally possible. Do something that doesn't restrict the ability of people to incorporate your code into other open source/free software projects more than it does the ability of people to incorporate it into proprietary software.

> Are you then to claim that jQuery is hostile to open source because it'll allow proprietary projects to make use of it?

No. I also didn't say that you're hostile to open source. I said that your licensing is hostile to '"free software" folks', in other words, people who refer to what they do as "free software". jQuery's licensing isn't hostile to them because it allows them to freely incorporate it into their projects to the same extent it allows proprietary projects to do so. Your license allows incorporation into proprietary software but restricts incorporation into the projects of the free software folks.