On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 04:48:52PM -0700, Ian Kelling wrote: > > Nicolás A. Ortega <[email protected]> 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. > > > > 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 > > A modification can't "improve" the license, because any modification > simply makes a new license. This can be mitigated if the old license > has an automatic upgrade provision, but sleepycat doesn't. A new license > comes with significant downsides, see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation. Without some > specific compelling reason an existing license wouldn't work, it's > better not to write a new license. I'm glad you are thinking about > giving people freedom, unfortunately, I don't think this is a good way > to do it.
I looked at the link you were mentioning, I had never heard of License proliferation before, so now I understand the issues with doing something like this. In which case, I am wondering if it would be possible in such a case to use a combination of FLOSS licenses to create something similar? For example, perhaps one could license a library under the (A)GPL and then offer LGPL (with static linkage exception) dual-license to Free Software projects. -- Nicolás Ortega Froysa (Deathsbreed) https://themusicinnoise.net/ http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/ Public PGP Key: https://themusicinnoise.net/[email protected]_pub.asc http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/[email protected]_pub.asc
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
