[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: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:34:19 +0200
User-agent: Mutt

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:39:13PM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> LGPL is copyleft, but the copyleft "preservation" part is required
> mainly when the user makes changes to the original (LGPL'd) work
> *itself*, this is why it's a weak copyleft license, while a simple
> dependency on the LGPL'd work wouldn't need to carry the same or
> compatible license (unless if statically linked, if I'm not mistaken).
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden

I've concluded in a previous thread[0] that the proper licensing for a
project to allow permissive licenses, yet only be usable by free
software projects, would be to license a library under the (A)GPL and
then to allow an LGPL dual-licensing for any project licensed under
exclusively FSF approved licenses. This would also avoid license
proliferation since it is simply a combination of two existing licenses.

With this kind of licensing scheme, one's library could be used by any
free software project but is not permitted to by used by a non-free
software project (as then the terms of the (A)GPL would apply making it
free software).


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]