[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Nicolás A . Ortega
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Potential of the Sleepycat License
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:32:50 +0200
User-agent: Mutt

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 04:17:31PM -0400, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Nicolás A. Ortega <
> address@hidden> 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).
> >
> But what happens at the next level of distribution?
> Consider this:
> Project A: -Licensed under your proposed modified sleepcat license.
> Project B: -Incorporates project A, and licensed under the MIT license.
> Project C: -Incorporates Project B, and as a result project A,
> Project C can't must be licensed under a free software license, otherwise
> it would violate the terms of the modified sleepcat license of project A.
> As a result, even though Project B wanted to use a permissive license,
> users of Project B, still have to release their source code.  You've made
> non-viral permissive licenses like MIT, viral as a result.

Not necessarily, let's say that Project C wants to use only parts of
Project B, but those parts do not require Project A. At that point
Project C can use Project B's code under the terms of the MIT without
needing to adhere to my license.

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]