[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[libreplanet-discuss] Potential of the Sleepycat License

From: Nicolás A . Ortega
Subject: [libreplanet-discuss] Potential of the Sleepycat License
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:55:52 +0200
User-agent: Mutt

I've tried having this discussion on #fsf and #gnu, and I think that
this license has the potential to be a great software license,
especially for libraries.

To my understanding the Sleepycat License[0] is a copyleft license in
which all derivatives of the work must be licensed likewise (under the
Sleepycat license) and works that use a project under this license must
disclose source code.

There are, however a couple problems with this license, the first one
(as you most likely have noticed while reading the above) is that
disclosure of source code does not mean free software, and secondly is
the issue that the license uses very specific terminology referring to
the BerkleyDB (the software that uses this license) and refers mostly to
DB software. Given, disclosure of source code is better (imo) than the
LGPL since it forces the disclosure of the sources (while LGPL only does
so in the case of static linking if there is no exception), and still
gives more freedom for the programmer to choose a license unlike one of
the GPL licenses (despite how much I love them).

However, if we can find people with the knowledge to write/modify
licenses ('cause I for sure will not be able to do that) then I think
that this license could be modified to fix those two problems (for
example, instead of requiring that code be disclosed, all 4 freedoms
could be required).

I am not an expert in licensing, which is why I brought this up here.
Hopefully someone here has the ability, time, and will to do this (if it
is possible). (^_^)


Nicolás Ortega Froysa (Deathsbreed)
Public PGP Key:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]