<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/25/2012 08:00 PM, Bruce Perens
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5061F128.4090900@perens.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/25/2012 10:51 AM, Hadrien
Grasland wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5061EF0B.5030001@yahoo.fr" type="cite">
Well, I'm not sure it's that. What I want to allow is for
derivative works to be licensed under the same terms and some
more.<br>
</blockquote>
It's trivially simple to construct terms that negate the effect of
the previous ones. Like "Oh, by the way, all of what I've said
before only applies after you make the huge payment specified
here."<br>
<br>
So, now you need to state what terms are permitted in the license
of a derivative work, and what is excluded.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Really ? I would have thought that the second line of these licenses
("Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
") pretty much disallowed that, since if you introduced a
contradictory term in a derivative's license, the "original
conditions" would not be met, and you would thus not be allowed to
use and release the derivative work in the first place.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5061F128.4090900@perens.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:5061EF0B.5030001@yahoo.fr" type="cite"> <br>
That's what I have in mind, indeed. Sorry for using the wrong
terminology.<br>
</blockquote>
It's always license <i>combination.</i> This is especially
relevant in the case of an LGPL-like license, as the user has the
right to ask for <i>some </i>of the source of a proprietary
derivative work, but not <i>all </i>of it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I guess I understand that. Anything else would mean that the author
of the derivative work would have acquired ownership of the original
work, which is not the case and anyway out of the scope of what I'm
trying to build.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5061F128.4090900@perens.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:5061EF0B.5030001@yahoo.fr" type="cite">
"Generalized Sleepycat License"</blockquote>
Sleepycat is a trademark. You'd have to ask them.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As you said in a later mail, asking Oracle about trademarks is
probably not going to work :) Guess I'm gonna have to stick with
MOSL then. After all, since we're talking about license combination,
the MOSL remains open-source even if a derivative work is released
under a combination of MOSL and a non-open source license, and that
is the point.<br>
<br>
A legal question that remains, though, is whether I even have the
right to copy/paste large chunks of the Sleepycat license in my own
license without having written it. Isn't the license itself
protected by copyright ?<br>
</body>
</html>