> - On the low level more generic tooling I use ALGPL, so a mix of AGLP and LGPL, you can think of it as LGPL but you cannot modify it without sharing the source if you make money off of hosting a service which uses the software (Amazon f.ex. would need to share source if they used it in a paying server product).
If you read what I wrote the purpose of the A in my LGPL is so big coorps can't use the source for profit without sharing something back if they improve it; avoiding the whole elastic search debacle, like the comment above about MIT use your common sense and morale to judge if this is unplesant or honest!?
It's not really a question of unplesantness or honesty, more that it's self-defeating: your intent to get the best of both worlds with participation in open source and getting some reward if your work is used commercially is reasonable, it's just that when you write your own license, especially by trying to combine two existing licenses, you're most likely going to wind up with neither (as in neither open source projects or contributers will be interested nor will commercial companies, and anyone who does will be more likely exposing themselves to legal risks).
Since there is no actual ALGPL (see e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3330792/why-isnt-there-a...), aren't you afraid that this "crayon license" of yours will scare people off?