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

2017-04-16 Thread carl hansen
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

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

2017-04-16 Thread Aaron Wolf
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

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

2017-04-16 Thread Michael Pagan
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

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

2017-04-16 Thread Bob Jonkman
-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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] What's bad about Chrome?

2017-04-16 Thread Félicien Pillot
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

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

2017-04-16 Thread Adam Van Ymeren
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

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

2017-04-16 Thread Nicolás A . Ortega
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).

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

2017-04-16 Thread Bob Jonkman
-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

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

2017-04-16 Thread Nicolás A . Ortega
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.

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

2017-04-16 Thread Jason Self
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

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

2017-04-16 Thread Nicolás A . Ortega
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