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

[Nicolás A . Ortega]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:39:13PM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> LGPL is copyleft, but the copyleft "preservation" part is required
> mainly when the user makes changes to the original (LGPL'd) work
> *itself*, this is why it's a weak copyleft license, while a simple
> dependency on the LGPL'd work wouldn't need to carry the same or
> compatible license (unless if statically linked, if I'm not mistaken).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

I've concluded in a previous thread[0] that the proper licensing for a
project to allow permissive licenses, yet only be usable by free
software projects, would be to license a library under the (A)GPL and
then to allow an LGPL dual-licensing for any project licensed under
exclusively FSF approved licenses. This would also avoid license
proliferation since it is simply a combination of two existing licenses.

With this kind of licensing scheme, one's library could be used by any
free software project but is not permitted to by used by a non-free
software project (as then the terms of the (A)GPL would apply making it
free software).

[0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2017-04/msg00019.html

-- 
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