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

[Nicolás A . Ortega]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 04:17:31PM -0400, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

Not necessarily, let's say that Project C wants to use only parts of
Project B, but those parts do not require Project A. At that point
Project C can use Project B's code under the terms of the MIT without
needing to adhere to my license.

-- 
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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature