[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Potential of the Sleepycat License

From: Bob Jonkman
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Potential of the Sleepycat License
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:38:41 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0

Hash: SHA1

What does the Sleepycat license gain the user that isn't covered by

All four freedoms are already covered by the xGPL licences, I myself
can't think of anything more a user needs to maintain zem's freedoms.

Certainly there are developers who think they need more freedoms
(including being allowed to use code without exposing source, or using
someone else's code without attribution, or using code without
propagating the xGPL), but to me those aren't compelling reasons to
switch away from xGPL.

- --Bob.

On 2017-04-15 05:55 AM, Nicolás A. Ortega wrote:
> 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). (^_^)
> [0]
> _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
> mailing list address@hidden 

- -- 

Bob Jonkman <address@hidden>          Phone: +1-519-635-9413
SOBAC Microcomputer Services   
Software   ---   Office & Business Automation   ---   Consulting
GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA

Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability


reply via email to

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