On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Nicolás A. Ortega < deathsbr...@themusicinnoise.net> 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. > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 03:11:43PM -0400, Bob Jonkman wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > 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 > > >>>> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > > >>>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> libreplanet-discuss mailing list > > >> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > > >> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss > > > mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > > > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > > > > > > > - -- > > > > > > Bob Jonkman <bjonk...@sobac.com> 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 > > > > iEYEARECAAYFAljzwd8ACgkQuRKJsNLM5eoccwCfXvqNWs5rn9jfjz0fexsG2j52 > > zJ0AnAlHhXnMO1ftzaEWgkJKKtQcZqIG > > =kN+Y > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > > -- > Nicolás Ortega Froysa (Deathsbreed) > https://themusicinnoise.net/ > http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/ > Public PGP Key: > https://themusicinnoise.net/deathsbreed@themusicinnoise.net_pub.asc > http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/deathsbreed@themusicinnoise.net_pub.asc > > _______________________________________________ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss