Licenses for Software (What I Currently Believe About Them)

I will explain what I believe about software licenses here. This is NOT a software license, nor does it reflect one I have built. It might reflect what I build in the future, but I reserve the right to change my mind. If anyone has some discussion about it, go ahead, but please be respectful. Here goes!

So to get it out of the way, I do not believe all software should be FOSS. Nor do I believe that all of it should be proprietory. I believe you should be able to build a system, which is free in price, but maybe that's not always what's recommended. I do NOT believe in piracy! Any such things if I "think" I'm accidentally doing something, then I fix it right away, if possible! I don't think I'm doing things like that, but that is what I would do.

OK. Here's where it get's tricky. I believe Microsoft, though the software can in some cases, be good, that the company's morals are bad. I DO NOT want to work at that place, but I'm happy to know how to use the software, so that I can help others.

If I had a guess at who has better morals, I would guess Linux Mint. But I really have to research that more.

OK. Should propriatory stuff like what Microsoft has, be allowed, or is it good? Probably not! A lot of times, I accept to use their software, because I must. I don't want to use it, really, but nothing else can do what it can. Why is it the only one that can? It's binary format.

OK. So should you just ditch windows and use Linux because of the license? That depends, which for now, is all I'm going to say here, as the scope is just about licenses, not which to use why.

So do I believe that all software should be just like Linux software licenses? Well NO, for several reasons.

So, Linux licenses (GPL), is great, but it doesn't allow you to make money with your software too much. I believe that if you don't really care about that, perhaps it should be licensed under gpl. But if the goal is to make money, then I would like to develop a better license. This is NOT that license, just what I believe in.

Now the developer should definately have special rights, like not to share while they are developing the software, so that no one steals that code, and uses it unlawfully, pretending to be them. But that doesn't mean, that the software should lock down uneccessary things. Second, it should be a timebomb where yes, it's a different license, but no it doesn't stay that way. After so long, use it with the terms of gpl, exactly.

That's what I believe a lot of software should be like. The specifics? Still working on it. Fortunately, I found I didn't need to rely on it a lot yet. Why? Because not all software should be that way either. I think with those changes, it should be able to make money just on the software, but still remain a core free piece of software, though it appearently doesn't meet the gnu definitions.

And finally, what about propriatory licenses? Probably, they should not be done like Microsofts, but some might need to exist. Basically, I think it's the responsibility of the license creator for the program, to allow the program to have the most rights possible for the user, while still giving the developer any rights they must have. It should allow the program to be used. I think it should probably in most cases, be open sources as well, so that changes can be made to help support the program.

Of course, I believe that the future OSs, should lock down (just a little), so that mostly, the user cannot break a license. This would help against accidental piracy. This is where I stand on the issue, if you disagree, please tell me why in the comments. Thanks!