libreplanet-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:21:50 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm enjoying this discussion; it is helping clarify my thoughts in the
matter. Please don't take my objections as anything more than a
personal opinion. As always, you are free to choose the license for
your code, and I am free to use your code as licensed, or not use it
at all.

You wrote:
> MIT license gives the user the same freedoms as the xGPL, however
> it is more relaxed

That's contradictory. Either it gives the same freedoms, or it is more
relaxed. Can't be both at the same time. If it is "more relaxed" I
understand that to mean that it does not enforce its license; so the
MIT license does not offer the user the same rigorous standing to
protect that users' freedoms.

Anyway, I am satisfied that the xGPL licenses meet my needs as both a
developer and a software user, and so I am unlikely to switch.

- --Bob.

On 2017-04-16 04:10 PM, Nicolás A. Ortega wrote:
> Not necessarily. The MIT license gives the user the same freedoms
> as the xGPL, however it is more relaxed and preferred by some
> developers. Therefore, this would allow those developers to use
> such a library without having to use the same license (choosing
> their preferred Free Software license).
> 
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 03:11:43PM -0400, Bob Jonkman wrote: So, to
> play devil's advocate: The new licence provides all the same 
> freedoms to the user as xGPL licenses, and gives the developer the 
> additional freedom to choose any other license that must also give 
> users and developers the same freedoms as an xGPL license. But if
> that other license must provide the same freedoms as xGPL then
> it's essentially a duplicate of xGPL, so the developer might as
> well choose the xGPL in the first place since that gives the same
> freedoms.
> 
> --Bob.
> 
> On 2017-04-16 05:11 AM, Nicolás A. Ortega wrote:
>>>> The Sleepycat license would be useful for a library because
>>>> unlike the GPL (or AGPL) it doesn't force the user of said
>>>> library (developing a program that links to the library) to
>>>> use the same license, but unlike the LGPL it forces the user
>>>> to at least disclose source code. I'm saying that with a
>>>> slight improvement of the license we could create one that
>>>> doesn't only require source code disclosure, but also that it
>>>> be completely free. However, I am still reading through
>>>> another e-mail in this thread that says it may not be a good
>>>> idea to make such a derivative, which I'll have to look
>>>> through since I really don't know much about the legal 
>>>> world.
>>>> 
>>>> In general, it's about saying that the user can use my
>>>> library and even choose their license for their project, but
>>>> that license must be a free software license (any of them).
>>>> That's the general idea of what I see in this license.
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 09:38:41PM -0400, Bob Jonkman wrote:
>>>> What does the Sleepycat license gain the user that isn't
>>>> covered by GPL or LPGL?
>>>> 
>>>> 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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepycat_license
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>>>>>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list 
>>>>>>> address@hidden 
>>>>>>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
_______________________________________________
>>>>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list 
>>>>> address@hidden 
>>>>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
>>>> mailing list address@hidden 
>>>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>>>>
>
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list 
>> address@hidden 
>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
> mailing list address@hidden 
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> 

- -- 


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

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

iEYEARECAAYFAljz7nkACgkQuRKJsNLM5ep6UQCgsgjhOtmthOFha+xVXzhTi4F3
nJIAoM7C4Vzam104xzG5ag8lADqLG/ZU
=STUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



reply via email to

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