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

[Adam Van Ymeren]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Nicolás A. Ortega <
deathsbreed@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 <bjonkman@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
>