- that what I want is shareware or freeware, but not free software
- that I sound like a communist
- that what I want is immoral and not sustainable
- after checking The Free Software Definition I fail to see why IPLv3 wouldn't be a free license
- calling me names is irrelevant to the issue at hand
- I fail to see why what I want is immoral
- I am not interested here in susteinability
A friend (the one that brought all this to my attention) also mentioned that, if I forbid somebody to sell my software, I might be accused of trying to infringe some rights or break some law.
IPLv3 doesn't forbid you to sell my software or its modifications. It simply forces you to distribute the modified sources under IPLv3 to anybody that asks for this, not only to those that buy the software from you. This is the only difference from IPLv3 and AGPLv3 (if the wording of IPLv3 makes you think something else, it is a bad wording, not my intention - I'm a physicist/software developer, after all, not a lawyer - and please let me know so that I can correct it).
I really don't understand why GPLv3 a/o AGPLv3 are not requiring this.
If there is a legal reason to avoid this, it should be clearly stated as a necessary evil and the FSF should explain why they had to do it.