How about this copyleft clause for 2BSDL or 3BSDL (that is, add this clause into the existing clauses of 2BSDL or 3BSDL to make it copyleft) with a rewritten clause 2 and a new clause 3 (3BSDL’s clause 3 get bumped to clause 4 in this case)
2. Redistributions in binary form of this work or any derivative work of this work must be accompanied with the corresponding, human-preferred source code. 3. Redistribution of any derivative work must be also licensed under the same license as this work. > On Mar 31, 2015, at 06:24, Tim Makarios <tjm1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:24 -0400, co...@ccil.org wrote: >> That's pretty much what the Sleepycat license does. Here's a very lightly >> edited version of its additional clause: >> >> Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information >> on how to obtain complete source code for the licensed software >> and any accompanying software that uses the licensed software. >> The source code must either be included in the distribution >> or be available for no more than the cost of distribution >> plus a nominal fee, and must be freely redistributable under >> reasonable conditions. For an executable file, complete source >> code means the source code for all modules it contains. >> It does not include source code for modules or files that >> typically accompany the major components of the operating >> system on which the executable file runs. > > I might have misunderstood it, but this seems like very weak copyleft to > me. The (presumably possibly modified) source code could be made > "freely redistributable under reasonable conditions" that were > themselves a permissive licence, allowing the next person to > re-monopolize their own derivatives of the derivative work. Or have I > missed something? > > How about this for a licence? > > The creators of this work affirm that anyone who obtains a copy of this > work is licensed to: > * make further copies and derivative works from their copy of the > work, and > * use and distribute their copies and derivative works, > provided that all such derivative works are governed by this licence. > > 50 words. It doesn't require making the source code available, but > recipients of binaries will always be free to make derivative works by > reverse engineering the binaries. It does make itself incompatible with > other copyleft licences, though, which seems difficult to avoid in a > very short, non-weak copyleft licence. I'd be keen to be proven wrong > on that point, though. > > Tim > <>< > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss