Motivation for Sleepycat + MIT hybrid

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Fri Apr 13 04:12:37 UTC 2007

Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> I want to avoid this obstacle because, for me, as long as my code is
> kept free (i.e. upon distribution, source code is available and
> modifications are not kept secret) then I am happy. I neither mind
> nor wish to impose the incorporator's choice of license.

IANAL, but I don't think this license (Sleepycat + MIT) allows
incorporation of your code into software with simple permissive licenses
(e.g. BSD).  To do so, you would need to allow your code to be
distributed under the BSD license. The BSD license /does/ allow
modifications to be kept secret.

> I agree and have accordingly refrained from submitting my license to
> the OSI for approval because there do not seem to be enough
> developers wanting the same things in a license as I do.

Okay, I would also urge you to use an OSI-approved license, but that's
ultimately your decision.

> In contrast, if you copy/paste/modify some MIT licensed code into
> your own code, your own code is not forced to become licensed under
> MIT upon distribution (but you must still adhere to the MIT license
> for the parts you copied). This is a feature I want in a license.

It's true that you are not specifying that the work that is pasted into
be licensed under Sleepycat/MIT.  However, it is still not compatible
with BSD (or MIT/Xorg/etc.) because it requires source availability.

Matthew Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list