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 < > [email protected]> 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/[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
