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

[Nicolás A . Ortega]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 03:32:51PM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> I wouldn't say that the difference is in what the licenses provide to
> "developers", because --- although I *don't want to* sound offensive ---
> thinking about the "developers" here is a little too much, it's like the
> "how I'll feed my children". :)
> 

I don't understand the comparison. :/

> So, as far as I understand it: copyleft and so [AL]*GPL licenses, have
> goals to try to ensure the four essential freedoms to the end users (no
> matter if these are developers or not), and to do that they have to
> limit some aspects of what the proprietor can do. So the comparison
> perhaps must be done starting from a defensive position (from the end
> user's side) to a liberalist one (to the side of the developer), and not
> the other way around.
> 

Well, LGPL doesn't necessarily do what you are saying since an LGPL
library can be used in a non-free project so long as it is dynamically
linked. (A)GPL solves this issue, but it also forces the subproject to
carry the same license (or in the case of the GPLv3, it can be licensed
under the AGPLv3, but not the other way around, that I am aware of) and
on top of that prohibit sublicensing. Personally I would not have an
issue with this (as I license just about all my software projects under
the (A)GPL), but I know many people who would and would end up rejecting
the library because it doesn't let them use their permissive 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