maybe Oracle couldn't figure it out either, so they just bought it out.
Avoids patents suits too.
https://shop.oracle.com/apex/product?p1=berkeleydb
Software US$360.00 -
License US$600,000.00
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
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
Nicolás A. Ortega writes:
> 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.
How so? And why /especially/ for libraries?
As a matter of strategy: A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm enjoying this discussion; it is helping clarify my thoughts in the
matter. Please don't take my objections as anything more than a
personal opinion. As always, you are free to choose the license for
your code, and I am free to use your code as
Le dimanche 16 avril 2017, 04:13:00 CEST David Hedlund a ?crit :
>I need a small list of things that are bad about Chrome (not Chromium),
>each with a reference?
>
>
>The work will help us write an article why the browser should be avoided.
Hi David,
Here is a small list (which I can improve if
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
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).
-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
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 04:48:52PM -0700, Ian Kelling wrote:
>
> Nicolás A. Ortega writes:
>
> > 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.
I am reminded of a conversation on license-discuss [0] about a similar
idea, along with the concerns it raised.
[0]
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2015-November/019340.html
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
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
11 matches
Mail list logo