[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Michael Pagan
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Potential of the Sleepycat License
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:02:12 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Aaron Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 04/16/2017 08:32 PM, Michael Pagan wrote:
>> the work must be under the same license as the original work, too.
> To be picky and pedantic, what matters for copyleft is merely that the
> freedoms may not be stripped away. It doesn't matter whether derivatives
> have the exact same license, that's just the normal mechanism for
> copyleft. GPLv3 code allows use in AGPLv3 and that's not strictly the
> same license. If it is ever released, copyleft-next might be a license
> that retains copyleft by specifying derivatives to use either the same
> *or* AGPL…
> What defines copyleft is that stripping away freedoms is itself
> copyright violation. Any mechanism achieving that result is copyleft.

Thank you for the clarification!

I usually see that most copyleft licenses require users to use the same
license upon redistribution or distribution of modified copies, but as
long as the freedoms go with the code, then copyleft is still in
effect no what which license is used... as I understand it.

Question, though:

I have noticed that the hackers maintain a list of copyleft
licenses, and that they even label which ones are compatible with the
GNU GPL.  Do they identify compatibility, so that in case someone wants
to use a similar copyleft license (which may contain slightly different
provisions) they can switch?

I guess this could make sense, for instance: Perhaps going from GPL to
AGPL, when a simple shell script gets refactored into a web client.
Michael Pagan (pegzmasta) [71B46D72]
B942 AD12 82B1 6D14 27A0  86AE 119E 451E 71B4 6D72
Free Software Hacker, <>

_Please consider the following before replying to me_:
Avoid *proprietary* attachments; see 
Consider using Email encryption; try <>.
Support software freedom today; join <>.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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